Skip to main content

Full text of "Minutes"

See other formats


DOCUMENTS DEPARTMENT! 



o 



■I 



> to 

CLOSED 
STACKS 



GOVERNMENT INFORMATION CENTER 
SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRAE 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 

REFERENCE 
BOOK 

Not to bo taken Irom the Library 



[WAT t n twc 

SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY 



lUiiiinn 

3 1223 03476 4127 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2013 



http://archive.org/details/1minutes1985sanf 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

FEB 2 5 1985 

GAN FRANCISCO 



MINUTES 



SPECIAL MEETING 
JANUARY 8, 1985 



DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

WILLIAM K. COBLENTZ 

Vice-President 

DR. Z.L. GOOSBY 

J. EDWARD FLEISHELL 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 



LOUIS A.TURPEIM 

Director of Airports 



San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

January 8, 1985 



Calendar 


Agenda 




Section 


Item 


Title 


A. 




CALL TO ORDER 


B. 




ROLL CALL: 


C. 




ADOPTION OF M 



Resolution 
Number 



Page 

3 
3 



D. 

E. 



1. 



2. 



3. 



4. 



5. 



Special Meeting of 
December 11, 1984 

ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 

DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

Report on the Professional 
Service Contract for 
"Parking Revenue Control 
Equipment" 

Airport Parking Facilities 
Operating Agreement: 
Specifications and Bid- 
ding Timetable 

Report on Proposed Increase 
in Employee Parking Fees 

Report on Safety Monitoring 
at the Airport 

Report on North Terminal 
Concession Plan - 1985 



F. 



6. Report on Principal Con- 
cession Proposal for the 
South Terminal Retail Shops 

7. Report on Status of Airline 
Compliance with SFIA Noise 
Abatement Regulation as of 
January 1, 1985 

ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 



85-0001 3 

3 



5-6 



Minutes, Special Meeting, January 8, 1985, Page 1 



4 



Calendar Agenda Resolution 

Section Item Title Number Page 

G. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

8. Airport Motor Coach Service 
Agreement - Authorization 

to Bid g 

9. Contract No. 1013, Computer- 
ized Parking Control System: 
Notice of Intention to 

Terminate Contract 85-0002 7 

10. Bid Call - Airport Contract 
No. 1606, Stone Walkway in 

Atrium, Boarding Area "D" 85-0003 7 

11. Design Review Approval - 
North Terminal Christian 

Science Reading Room 85-0004 7 

H. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

12. Declaration of Emergency for 
Construction of Enclosures at 
Inbound Baggage Facilities to 
Eliminate Alleged Health 
Hazards Caused by Fluctuating 

Temperatures 85-0005 8 

13. Rejection of Bids and Author- 
ization to Rebid Airport Con- 
tract No. 1585, Emergency 

Security Fencing Repair 85-0006 8 

14. Tenant Improvement: 

Dollar Rent-A-Car 85-0007 8 

15. Bid Call - Airport Contract 
No. 1380, Replacement of 

PCB Transformers 85-0008 8 

16. Proposed Exhibitions 
Program, Fiscal Year 

1985/1986 85-0009 8 

17. Retirement Resolution - 

Zerline Dixon 85-0010 9 

I. CORRESPONDENCE: 9 

J. TRAILING CALENDAR: 9 

L. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED 

SESSION: : 9 



Minutes, Special Meeting, January 8, 1985, Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

January 8, 1985 



A. CALL TO ORDER: 

The special meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:00 A.M. in Room 2C, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



B. ROLL CALL: 

Present: 



Commissioners Morris Bernstein, 
William K. Coblentz, Z. L. Goosby, 
J. Edward Fleishell. 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The minutes of the special meeting of December 11, 1984 were adopted by 
order of the Commission President. 

No. 85-0001 



D. ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 



In accordance with Section 54957.1 of 
the Brown Act, Jean Caramatti, 
Commission Secretary, announced 
unanimous adoption of Resolution 
No. 85-0011 regarding the settlement 
of litigated claim at the Closed 
Session of December 11, 1984. 



Minutes, Special Meeting, January 8, 1985, Page 3 



E. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

1. Report on the Professional Service Contract for "Parking Revenue 
Control Equipment" 

The history of retaining Cerand & 
Company as the consultant for the 
Parking Revenue Control Equipment. 

Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director, explained that this report was in 
response to a Commission request to summarize the history surrounding 
the parking revenue control issue. He said that the issue is whether 
to go with a fully-automated or semi-automated system. Mr. Turpen 
told the Commission that it has been several years since staff did 
their last survey of major airports and the types of systems being 
used and another survey should be done. Staff will then present the 
Commission with a recommendation on how to proceed. 



2. Airport Parking Facilities Operating Agreement: Specifications and 
Bidding Timetable. 

Mr. Turpen said that this was early notification that the current 
agreement for operating the garage will terminate on November 30, 
1985. He said there has been excellent success with the management 
contract concept. The modifications stipulated have been made and 
the proposed timetable to rebid the proposed Airport parking 
facilities operating agreement have been outlined in the report. 

Mr. Turpen said that he recommended rebidding the agreement in the 
format as it presently exists, with minor modifications. 



Report on Proposed Increase in Employee Parking Fees 

Report recommending increases in 
employee parking fees in Lot D and the 
Garage. 

Mr. Turpen said that this is in response to a Commission inquiry 
concerning employee parking rates. He felt it only fair that these 
rates keep pace with other increases. 

A public hearing will be held at the next meeting with a resolution 
to follow on February 5th. All tenants will receive a notice 
advising them of the public hearing. 



4. Report on Safety Monitoring at the Airport 

Mr. Turpen said this report was in response to a Commission inquiry 
concerning routine monitoring of physical plants at the Airport and 
that Mr. Bouey was present to answer any questions. 



Minutes, Special Meeting, January 8, 1985, Page 4 



Report on North Terminal Concession Plan - 1985 

Report submitting proposed North 
Terminal Concession Plan effecting the 
concession leases expiring in 1985. 

Mr. Turpen said that the Airport's first real attempt at marketing 
concessions was in 1979-80 in the North Terminal. 

He said the lease term is expiring on the first group of 
concessions. Page 4 of the memo outlines some of the criteria 
against which the success of the current operation is measured. 
Staff has also outlined what they would like to do to enhance the 
concessions in the North Terminal. 

Mr. Turpen said staff was recommending keeping two concessions and 
introducing two new concessions. The new concessions would include a 
flower/candy shop and the other would sell hosiery and attendant 
items. Mr. Turpen said he would await the Commission's comments. 

Commissioner Goosby appreciated the background information included 
in the item. 



6. Report on Principal Concession Proposal for the South Terminal Retail 
Shops 

Mr. Turpen said that staff anticipates in excess of 11,000 square 
feet of concession retail space in the remodeled South Terminal in 
comparison to the approximate 2300 square feet which currently 
exists. Thought is being given to either establish a principal 
concessionaire for each boarding area or a principal concessionaire 
for the entire area. 

Mr. Turpen felt that there would be obvious benefits to establishing 
a principal concessionaire for the South Terminal. The operator 
would be able to move people fairly freely depending on demand and 
there would be some uniformity and control over merchandise that is 
sold and where it is sold. 

Mr. Turpen said that concessions could be oriented to traffic. 
Boarding Area A, for example, will house PSA whose passengers travel 
short distances; Boarding Area B will house TWA and Western carrying 
passengers into intermediate/long-haul markets; and, Boarding Area C 
which has Delta, a transcontinental carrier. 

Another approach would be the inclusion of mobile carts. 

A third approach would be in the inclusion of a consultant paid for 
by the successful bidder and available to MBE/WBE businesses who 
would be included in the 25 percent participation goal established in 
this principal concession. 

The last approach is the establishment of a market basket for the 
concessions in the South Terminal that would be different from those 
that currently exist in the North and International Terminals. 



Minutes, Special Meeting, January 8, 1985, Page 5 



Mr. Turpen recommended proceeding in this manner in view of the 
square footage, the opportunity to bring in a consultant, and to 
continue with our MBE participation program which is recognized by 
the FAA, and, the mobile cart concept. 

Mr. Turpen asked for the Commission's comments and reactions. 

Commissioner Coblentz agreed with staff's plans for the South 
Terminal. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if the leases would be for five years. 

Mr. Turpen responded that they would be for five years. He feared 
that if they were for longer periods of time the concession would be 
locked in and the Airport would lose control. 



7. Report on Status of Airline Compliance with SFIA Noise Abatement 
Regulation as of January 1, 1985. 

This report informs the Commission of 
the actions taken and results to 
achieve 100% Part 36 Operation at SFIA 
by January 1, 1985. 

Mr. Turpen said that Commission Resolution No. 78-0131 requires that 
all airlines operating at SFIA operate noise certificated fleets 
under Part 36 by January 1, 1985. The Noise Abatement office has 
surveyed all airlines operating at SFIA and those 49 airlines 
operating aircraft falling under the Part 36 criteria are in 
compliance. Staff will continue to monitor field-side activity 
should there be any departure from the current level of adherence to 
the Federal regulation. 



F. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

There were no items initiated by commissioners, 



G. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

The following item was put over to February 5, 1985. 

8. Airport Motor Coach Service Agreement - Authorization to Bid 

Resolution approving contract 
documents for Airport Motor Coach 
Service Agreement and authorization to 
bid. 



Minutes, Special Meeting, January 8, 1985, Page 6 



The following items were unanimously adopted. 

9. Contract No. 1013, Computerized Parking Control System: Notice of 
Intention to Terminate Contract. 

No. 85-0002 Resolution to authorize serving 

Autoscan Systems, Inc. and its surety, 
Fidelity and Deposit Company of 
Maryland with notice of Airports 
Commission intention to terminate 
Contract No. 1013. 

Mr. Turpen asked that the Commission support the staff recommendation 
to terminate the Autoscan contract. 

There were no requests from the public to speak. 



10. Bid Call: Airport Contract No. 1606 

Stone Walkway in Atrium, Boarding Area "D" 

No. 85-0003 Resolution approving the scope, budget 

and schedule for Airport Contract No. 
1606 and authorizing the Director of 
Airports to call for bids when ready. 
The purpose of the contract is to 
provide a surface around the inside 
perimeter of the atrium for moving the 
window washing lift. Contract time is 
60 calendar days. 



11. Design Review Approval: North Terminal Christian Science Reading Room 

No. 85-0004 Resolution approving the schematic 

design of the North Terminal Christian 
Science Reading Room. 

Commissioner Coblentz asked if this had been reviewed by Jason Yuen 
and Howard Friedman. 

Mr. Turpen said that they both approved the design. 

Mr. Turpen said that the Christian Science Reading Room is paying the 
standard rental rate {category 1) on a month-to-month basis. 

Commissioner Goosby asked about the reference to the First Amendment. 

Mr. Don Garibaldi, Airport General Counsel, responded that the 
Airport is requiring that the Christian Science Reading Room put up a 
disclaimer sign similar to the signs on the First Amendment booths in 
the terminals. He said the Airport is not sponsoring any of their 
activities. 



Minutes, Special Meeting, January 8, 1985, Page 7 



H. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

The following items were unanimously adopted. 

12. Declaration of Emergency for Construction of Enclosures at Inbound 
Baggage Facilities to Eliminate Alleged Health Hazards Caused by 
Fluctuating Temperatures 

No. 85-0005 



13. Rejection of Bids and Authorization to Rebid Airport Contract 1585, 
Emergency Security Fencing Repair 

No. 85-0006 Resolution rejecting all bids for 

Airport Contract No. 1585 and 
authorizing the Director of Airports 
to readvertise and call for bids when 
ready. The low bidder disqualified 
his bid by changing the context of the 
proposal; the second bid was substan- 
tially over the budget. 



14. Tenant Improvement: Dollar Rent-A-Car 

No. 85-0007 Installation of Car Wash and Gasoline 

Pump Island at Lot B. T-2900, $60,000, 



15. Bid Call - Airport Contract No. 1380 
Replacement of PCB Transformers 

No. 85-0008 Resolution approving the scope, budget 

and schedule for Airport Contract No. 
1380 and authorizing the Director of 
Airports to call for bids when ready. 
The purpose of this contract is to 
replace three Polychlorinated Biphenyl 
(PCB) filled transformers with new 
non-PCB containing transformers. 
Contract time is 300 calendar days. 



16. Proposed Exhibitions Program, Fiscal Year 1985/1986 

No. 85-0009 Proposed Exhibitions Program for the 

fiscal year 1985/86, listing the 
proposed exhibits with descriptions. 

Commissioner Goosby commented that there is a large array of great 
exhibits coming into the Airport. 



Minutes, Special Meeting, January 8, 1985, Page 8 



17. Retirement Resolution - Zerline Dixon 

No. 85-0010 Resolution expressing best wishes for 

the fullest measure of health, 
happiness and fruitful retirement to 
Zerline Dixon. 



I CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission. 



J. TRAILING CALENDAR: 

There was no discussion of trailing calendar items, 



L. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 9:17 A.M. to go into closed session. 



n J- 

Jean Caramatti 
Commission Secretary 

U 



Minutes, Special Meeting, January 8, 1985, Page 9 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 



DOC 



MINUTES 



^ Special Meeting 
- January 22, 1985 






DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

WILLIAM K. COBLENTZ 

Vice-President 

DR. Z.L. GOOSBY 

J. EDWARD FLEISHELL 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 

LOUIS A.TURPEIM 

Director of Airports 

San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

January 22, 1985 
Special Meeting 



Calendar 


Agenda 




Section 


Item 


Title 


A. 




CALL TO ORDER: 


B. 




ROLL CALL: 


C. 




ADOPTION OF MINUTES 



Resolution 
Number 



Page 

3 
3 



Special Meeting of 
January 8, 1985 

ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 

DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

Report on the Development 
of Airport Land Utilization 
Plan 

Report on the Bay Area 
Teleguide System 

ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

Airport Limousine Service Lease - 
Approval of Lease and Authoriza- 
tion to Bid 



85-0012 



4,13-14 

4 
5 



5-8 



Smarte Carte - Test of Free 
Carts in Customs 

$15,000 Modification to Morris 
Davis Professional Services 
Agreement 

CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

Near Field Detector and 
ILS System for Runway 28R 

Statistical Adjustments for 
1984-85, Joint Use Billings 
under New Lease & Use 
Agreement 



85-0013 



85-0014 



85-0015 



85-0016 



8-11 



11 



12 



12 



Minutes, Special Meeting, January 22, 1985, Page 1 



Calendar Agenda Resolution 

Section Item Title Number Page 

8. Joint Use Billings for 
1984-85, Joint Use Bil- 
lings under New Lease s. 

Use Agreement 85-0017 12 

I. CORRESPONDENCE: 12 

J. PUBLIC HEARING: 

9. Airports Commission Budget 

for Fiscal Year 1985/86 12-13 

10. Proposed Increase in 

Employee Parking Fees 13 

K. TRAILING CALENDAR: 14 

M. ADJOURNMENT: 14 



Minutes, Special Meeting, January 22, 1985, Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Special Meeting 

January 22, 1985 



A. CALL TO ORDER: 

The special meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:00 A.M. in Room HOB of the War Memorial Veterans' Building, San 
Francisco, Ca. 



B. ROLL CALL: 

Present : 



Commissioners Morris Bernstein, 
J. Edward Fleishell, 
Athena Tsougarakis 



Commissioner Coblentz arrived at 
9:03 a.m. 

Commissioner Goosby arrived at 
9:06 a.m. 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The minutes of the special meeting of January 8, 1985 were adopted by 
order of the Commission President. 

No. 85-0012 



D. ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 



In accordance with Section 54957.1 of 
the Brown Act, Jean Caramatti, 
Commission Secretary, announced 
unanimous adoption of Resolution No. 
85-0011 regarding the settlement of 
litigated claim at the Closed Session 
of January 8, 1985. 



Minutes, Special Meeting, January 22, 1985, Page 3 



DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

1. Report on the Development of Airport Land Utilization Plan 

Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director, explained that the process used in 
developing an Airport master plan as well as the timetable has been 
outlined in the memo to the Commission. He explained that a review 
statement will be presented to the Commission after the demand in 
each benchmark has been identified and evaluated. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked when in 1986 would Anza's parking 
contract terminate. 

Mr. Sheldon Fein, Landside Operations, responded that he does not 
have a definite date. Anza sold the property and the new owners are 
in the process of designing and getting approvals from the City to 
construct office buildings. 

Commissioner Tsougarakas commented that it appears that if the 
timetable was correct and it was approved in September 1985 it might 
not be enough time for planning parking. 

Mr. Turpen said staff is already taking a look at the parking 
situation but before something is put together there will be a 
parking shortfall in an around the Airport. 



Report on the Bay Area Teleguide System 

Report on the usage and technical 
problems of the Bay Area Teleguide 
System and recommendation that said 
system remain on Airport for an 
additional six-month trial period, 
with conditions. 

Mr. Turpen explained that this is an interactive passenger 
information system on a space permit which began last July and was 
scheduled to terminate this month. Bay Area Teleguide is the firm 
providing this service. Mr. Turpen said that a recent analysis of 
their operation indicated that there were about 41,000 users of the 
terminal and of that figure about 16,000 persons accessed information, 

Commissioner Coblentz said that since this will be at no cost to the 
Airport and will be on a trial basis he recommended letting Bay Area 
Teleguide proceed. 

Mr. Turpen agreed that Bay Area Teleguide should proceed. He said 
that in the past the Commission discussed the benefits of a static 
"You Are Here" system versus the interactive "You Are Here" system. 
He said that staff has come up with the proposal of displaying a "You 
Are Here" map rather than a logo thus making the system a static/ 
interactive "You Are Here" combination. 

Mr. Turpen said he discussed this with the Chronicle Videotex people 
and they are working towards putting it on within the next six months. 

Mr. Turpen said he will be back in July with another report. 



Minutes, Special Meeting, January 22, 1985, Page 4 



F. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

There were no items initiated by Commissioners, 



G. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

The following item was put over. 

3. Airport Limousine Service Lease - Approval of Lease and Authorization 
to Bid 

Resolution approving contract 
documents for Airport Limousine 
Service Lease and authorizing staff to 
bid the lease. 

Mr. Turpen said that it was his understanding that the only question 
at this time concerned the Human Rights Commission percentage. He 
said that Ms. Gittens addressed the question to Grant Mickins of the 
Human Rights Commission. 

Ms. Angela Gittens, Deputy Director of Business and Finance, 
explained that the issue was a regulation revised by the Human Rights 
Commission as to the proportion that a venture had to be qualified 
for a local preference. She said that there are various 
minority/non-minority combinations that could or could not qualify 
for local preference. She explained that if a venture has no 
minorities or females it must be 100 percent local in order to 
qualify for a local preference. A venture that has non-local 
minorities or females must have 51 percent local minorities in order 
to qualify for the local preference. If a venture has local 
minorities it needs 35 percent to qualify for local preference. 

Commissioner Coblentz asked if owner-operator vehicles had to hire 
minorities. 

Ms. Gittens responded that the test would be to what extent the 
owners share in the profit of the business. If there were no females 
and no minorities they would not be qualified to bid on this contract. 

Commissioner Coblentz felt this was discrimination and asked for a 
City Attorney's opinion on the requirement to have 35 percent 
minority or females in order to bid. He does not know of any 
concession that is analagous to this situation. 

Mr. Turpen said staff will discuss this with the City Attorney. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that an operator can bid, subcontract for 
additional limousines and require 75 percent of the subcontractors 
gross in order to become part of the combine. He asked if the 
Airport has any say in that contract. 

Ms. Gittens responded that the only provision for review of such a 
contract is if a minority composition is claimed on joint venture. 

Commissioner Fleishell agreed with Commissioner Coblentz' comments. 



Minutes, Special Meeting, January 22, 1985, Page 5 



Commissioner Fleishell, citing page 5, "Director shall have the right 
to make reasonable objections to the quality of articles sold,..." 
said that he is not aware of any articles being sold. 

Commissioner Fleishell felt that the $l-million insurance for 
industrial makes sense but $l-million per limousine per single injury 
is inadequate. 

Ms. Gittens responded that that amount is about $20,000 higher than 
the PUC regulation although that is going up in November. 

Commissioner Fleishell explained that the Airport is putting together 
a lease on the basis of the Airport's exposure. 

Ms. Gittens said that an increase in insurance might make the bid 
more restrictive. 

Commissioner Goosby said that there was some interest expressed at 
the pre-bid conference to grant the successful bidder the right to 
sell tickets for other ground transportation services. He asked if 
the successful bidder would receive a percentage of the tickets sold. 

Ms. Gittens responded that the Director would issue a permit and the 
Airport would receive a percentage. She explained that although this 
is not a part of the lease the lease anticipates this situation on a 
permitted basis. The successful bidder would receive a commission 
from the particular ground transportation service. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked Mr. Robert Oziel of Associated 
Limousines to address the Commission. 

Mr. Oziel said that he hoped each Commissioner had received a copy of 
his letter. He said that his company has been at the Airport for 12 
years and built up the business from nothing. 

Mr. Oziel said that the majority of their drivers were 
owner-operators. He explained that they each own one car and work in 
conjunction with the others. He complained that according to the 
Human Rights Commission his company will be forced to find a minority 
with a permit and a certain amount of experience and give them a 
relatively high percentage of the business. He said there was no 
breakdown as to whether or not it would be a gross total. He 
explained that northbound cars generally operate under a charter 
permit and southbound cars generally operate under a stagecoach 
permit. Mr. Oziel said there is not enough money or business to go 
north on a stagecoach permit on a regular basis. He said you could 
not give some 35 percent or 51 percent of the total business because 
the dollar amounts would be different going north as opposed to going 
south. 

Mr. Oziel, in closing, said that the Airport has been running 
smoothly up until now. If the Airport is unhappy with the costs, 
something can be negotiated. If the Airport is unhappy with the 
hiring procedures, then those procedures should be changed rather 
than going with the Human Rights Commission's 35 percent ownership. 
He felt that any company should be able to bid so long as they can 
come up with the Human Rights commission employee figures in the end. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked Mr. Frank Todaro of Airport Limousine 
Service of Sunnyvale if he wished to address the Commission. 



Minutes, Special Meeting, January 22, 1985, Page 6 



Mr. Todaro said that his company is a non-minority owned corporation 
operating 22 limousines. He said 25-30 percent of their 
owner-operators are minority but do not own any part of the company. 
He said that about 66 percent of their employees are minority but 
they do not own any part of the company either. 

Mr. Todaro said that in order to be able to bid his company will have 
to joint venture with at least one other organization. He requested 
that the Commission reduce the minority percentage to 33-1/3 percent 
rather than 35 percent so that a joint venture with three equal 
partners could be formed. He explained that in his case in order to 
obtain licensing and some minority participation he would need a 
joint venture with two other entities. 

Mr. Todaro said that although he felt his company could put a 
workable joint venture together on this basis he shared Mr. Oziel's 
concerns with the whole concept. He said that he would hope that a 
company that employs a number of minority employees or has a number 
of minority owner-operators would qualify for any goals the City 
has. Failing that, the 33-1/3 percent would be best. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked Mr. George Long of Golden State 
Limousine if he wished to address the Commission. 

Mr. Long said that Golden State Limousine is owned by a woman. They 
have permits for San Francisco and Marin Counties and have applied 
for permits for Contra Costa County. He said his company has no 
problems with what the Airport has done and what the Commission wants 
to do and they are ready to comply in all areas. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis thought that a subcontractor that is a 
minority owner-operator would qualify. 

Ms. Gittens responded that it was her understanding that it would 
depend on the relationship. If the subcontractor did not share in 
the profits and was basically an employee he would not qualify 
because he is not truly an entrepreneur. 

Ms. Gittens said that an owner-operator can own 100 percent of the 
limousine but only 2 percent of the total business. 

Mr. Turpen said he will consult with the City Attorney and report 
back to the Commission on February 5. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked where the 35 percent came from. 

Ms. Gittens responded that there are two 35 percents. One is the 
Airport's requirement of a 35 percent minority set-aside. This is 
the same level that the Human Rights Commission has for local or 
minority preference for a joint venture because staff anticipated 
that this would be a joint venture. 

Commissioner Fleishell wanted to know why we are tinkering with 
something that works well. 

Ms. Gittens responded that this started over a year ago when there 
was concern that other potential limousine operators were being shut 
out. 

Commissioner Goosby explained that this came up 5 years ago and said 
it was unfair to continue to give permits to the three companies just 
because they have been at the Airport for so long. 



Minutes, Special Meeting, January 22, 1985, Page 7 



Commissioner Tsougarakis asked how much business is done with other 
operators. 

Ms. Gittens did not have a specific figure but said there is quite a 
bit of business done on a pre-arranged basis. 

Mr. Turpen explained that the other limousine operators cannot 
solicit fares at the Airport. 

Commissioner Coblentz said he wanted to make certain that this is 
fair and equitable to everyone. He said that perhaps in the long run 
the Airport should follow the practice of complete de-regulation 
advocated in Washington D.C. and open it up to everyone. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if any consideration is being given to 
those who give better service. 

Ms. Gittens responded that in the bidding qualification there is a 
question referring to experience. Staff can check with the Public 
Utilities Commission regarding complaints received against the 
operator. 

Mr. Turpen said that the item will be put over to February 5 at which 
time staff will present a further clarification of the Human Rights 
Commission portion. If there is any concern in the interim either he 
or Ms. Gittens can be contacted. 



The following item was adopted by a 4-1 vote with Commissioner Fleishell 
casting the dissenting vote. 

4. Smarte Carte - Test of Free Carts in Customs 

No. 85-0013 Resolution for Commission approval of 

a test of free baggage carts in 
Customs by Smarte Carte. Airport will 
pay Smarte Carte to conduct test. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that he is opposed to this. The 
Commission wants free carts, the Mayor wants free carts and most of 
the members of the Board of Supervisors want free carts. He said 
that every delay possible has occurred. He asked how staff obtained 
the $90,000 without going to the Board of Supervisors. 

Mr. Turpen responded that staff looked at the Commission's plan to 
have free carts confined to Customs and found that the physical space 
in Customs would not lend itself to that plan. The U.S. Customs 
Service and the Fire Marshall also objected to the plan for physical 
and operational reasons. 

Mr. Turpen said staff took a look at the alternate plan of collecting 
carts outside the Customs area and returning them to Customs. This 
meant offering a free cart for 60-70 feet at which point the 
passenger would have to relinquish it and use a skycap or rent a cart. 

Mr. Turpen said that staff was instructed by commission resolution to 
install a staff-free cart system with unrestricted use. Staff 
developed a cost estimate and determined that it would cost the 
Airport approximately $500,000 to buy the carts and hire the people 
to return them to Customs from various parts of the Airport. The 
Board of Supervisors approved purchase of the carts but denied the 
expenditure for additional help. He explained that this left the 
Airport in an operational bind. 



Minutes, Special Meeting, January 22, 1985, Page 8 



Mr. Turpen said that a pre-bid conference was held in anticipation of 
the July termination of Smarte Carte's contract. Smarte Carte 
attended the pre-bid conference as well as one other person who had 
no cart experience. 

Mr. Turpen said staff has surveyed the entire industry of 16 
different firms to try and find one interested in managing a cart 
operation. He said there are only two companies in the world that 
make cart dispensers and one is Smarte Carte. The other has 
indicated that they are not certain they would care to manage the 
system. 

Mr. Turpen said that Smarte Carte was very reluctant to enter into 
any type of agreement to provide free carts so in order to get this 
moving staff wanted to negotiate a trial period with Smarte Carte to 
provide free carts. He explained that the carts would go out at 
$1.00 a piece and the passenger would get 25jzS back when the cart is 
returned. The Airport would get 10 percent of the 75£ remaining so 
the net outflow to the Airport would be 92-1/2^ a cart. 

Mr. Turpen said that this would be an excellent way to get a handle 
on costs, explaining that there is a tremendous reluctance on the 
part of the Board of Supervisors and Mayor Feinstein to approve the 
hiring of additional personnel. He felt that trying to put in a 
system of free carts without the personnel to retrieve them is 
dooming the system to failure. 

Mr. Turpen explained that there are really two issues involved: the 
first is that the carts be made available free of charge to arriving 
international passengers, and, the second is the Commission's 
objection to the shape of the cart. He said that Smarte Carte has 
indicated that they would change the design of the cart. Mr. Turpen 
felt we could get more bidders if the test proves out. Furthermore, 
it will give us an idea of how much we are going to spend. Staff 
feels that we might save money by offering a reward to return the 
cart. 

Mr. Turpen said that Smarte Carte now has a contract with Safeway to 
provide carts and they are offering a 10 cent reward if the cart is 
returned. 

Mr. Turpen said staff is trying to satisfy what the Commission wants 
as well as satisfy the operational needs at the Airport in as 
expeditious a manner as possible. 

Mr. Turpen said he does not want to put a system in place that won't 
work. He said he is trying to promote a system that will work and 
reflect favorably on the Airport and the Commission. He said this 
test will give us a good idea of what it will cost. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if anything was going to be done about the 
shape of the carts. 

Mr. Turpen responded that nothing would be done right now. Smarte 
Carte has already committed that they will change the design of the 
cart in consideration for an extension of the lease. 

Commissioner Goosby suggested that the other option was to have the 
barriers like they do in New York. Passengers come through Customs 
with a free cart and when they reach the barrier outside of Customs 
they transfer their luggage to a pay cart or give their luggage to a 
Skycap. 



Minutes, Special Meeting, January 22, 1985, Page 9 



Commissioner Coblentz commented that there were no longer carts 
beyond the barriers in New York. 

Mr. Turpen said that he had a video tape shot of the entire Customs 
operation and personally went to the Airport on weekends and nights 
to observe. He said that some of the heaviest baggage flights in the 
world come through SFO. He said that people come out of Customs 
pushing carts with baggage piled to a height of 6 feet. To suggest 
that passengers transfer their luggage at that point would not be 
operationally prudent. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked what the original rationale was for 
free carts in the first place. She said that if it was because they 
don't have the $1.00 in their pockets in Customs what makes you think 
they are going to have it when they get to the barrier? 

Commissioner Fleishell responded that passengers are usually met by 
someone. He was surprised that staff doesn't already know what 
happens to the carts. He said that passengers come out with their 
cart and get in a car, or, a friend gets the car while they wait at 
the curb. He said there are a number of ways that this could work 
and did not think it was the Commission's job to tell staff how to 
handle an operational item. He suggested that barricades could be 
placed in the garage, limiting the areas in the garage where carts 
could be taken. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis thought that the test should be made. She 
felt that the notion of a reward, even though the cart is free in the 
first place, would be the cleanest way of solving the problem. She 
felt that carts in Customs should not be any different than any other 
carts in the Airport. In trying to return carts to Customs from 
other parts of the Airport you will be creating another problem. 

Commissioner Coblentz said he would be in favor of the test because 
sooner or later the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors will have to 
be faced with the total expense. He said that after the test the 
figures can then be presented to the Mayor as our best estimate based 
on the research staff has done. Commissioner Coblentz said he is 
willing to go along with the $90,000 expenditure, but no more. 

Mr. Turpen, responding to Commissioner Fleishell's comments, told the 
Commission that staff did a survey on where carts are taken and found 
that approximately 50 percent go to the curbside. The rest go out to 
the garage, the North Terminal, the South Terminal, or back up stairs. 

Commissioner Coblentz said that in New York you take your cart as far 
as the Custom's checkpoint and no further because Customs does not 
want those carts outside of their area. So, you've given up your 
cart before you have even left Customs and no one is there to help 
you. 

Mr. Turpen said that at this point we really don't know how many 
people will take a cart because of the current $1.00 charge. He said 
that passengers who pay the $1.00 and pile the cart high with baggage 
might take two or three carts when they are free. 

Mr. Turpen felt that if we can get an operator to put this type of 
system in with the cart that we select there will be more companies 
interested in bidding. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if the Airport pays for missing carts. 



Minutes, Special Meeting, January 22, 1985, Page 10 



Commissioner Coblentz did not think the Airport should be liable for 
any missing carts. 

Mr. Turpen responded that under this agreement the Airport is not 
liable for missing carts and that the reward system has been very 
effective in minimizing those numbers. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that the purpose of the test, in part, is 
to determine how many carts passengers take. Anyone who has come 
into our Airport knows that you can't get out without two carts if 
you are a couple traveling together. SFO is the only international 
airport in the world with that type cart. You can get one bag in it, 
the rest must be put on top. Then the cart flops over. 

Mr. Turpen said that Los Angeles and Honolulu have that type of cart. 

Commissioner Fleishell felt that until the Airport has a cart that 
fits international requirements and accommodates the number of bags 
now allowed by air lines, you cannot make a fair test. He felt this 
just further delays the problem and offers no solution. 

Commissioner Coblentz commented that when he and his wife travel they 
manage to squeeze four large suitcases on the cart. He said it is a 
little unwieldy but it can be done. 

In closing, Mr. Turpen said the former Finance Committee of the Board 
of Supervisors was adamant about not hiring any additional people. 
Furthermore, the Mayor's budget instructions are clear cut with 
respect to not hiring any additional people. If we decide to run 
this system by ourselves we would need money to buy the carts and 
money to pay employees to move the carts around. Unless we have the 
necessary resources the program won't be effective. 

Commissioner Goosby said that Smarte Carte has supplied employees to 
change money but they weren't on duty all the time. 

Mr. Turpen said that Citicorp has indicated that they might want to 
put a facility in Customs. He told Citicorp he would recommend 
approval of the facility to the Commission. Mr. Turpen said it would 
be an extension of what they have right outside the Customs area. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked how staff got the $90,000 without going 
to the Board of Supervisors. 

Ms. Gittens said that staff previously went to the Board of 
Supervisors on construction of barricades and purchase of carts under 
the old system. It was felt that the same financing could be used 
for this purpose. 

Commissioner Fleishell said it was just more money and we still don't 
have a solution to the problem. 



The following item was unanimously adopted. 

5. $15,000 Modification to Morris Davis Professional Services Agreement 

85-0014 Resolution authorizing a $15,000 

modification to the Morris Davis 
professional services agreement. 



Minutes, Special Meeting, January 22, 1985, Page 11 



H. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

The following items were unanimously adopted. 

6. Near Field Detector and ILS System for Runway 28R 

No. 85-0015 Resolution approving modification #001 

to FAA lease FA7SWE-2904 for the 
relocation of FAA equipment shelter 
for the Near Field Detector and ILS 
System for Runway 28R. 



7. Statistical Adjustments for 1984-85 

Joint Use Billings under New Lease & Use Agreement 

No. 85-0016 Resolution adjusting 1984-85 Joint Use 

Billings pursuant to Section 101. W of 
the Airline-Airport Lease and Use 
Agreement for Total Air. 



8. Joint Use Billings for 1984-85 

Joint Use Billings under New Lease and Use Agreement 

No. 85-0017 Resolution adjusting 1984-85 Joint Use 

Billings pursuant to Section 101. W of 
the Airline-Airport Lease and Use 
Agreement for Frontier Airlines. 



I. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission. 



PUBLIC HEARING: 

The Public Hearing was called to order at 9:46 A.M. and ended at 9:49 A.M. 

9. Airports Commission Budget for Fiscal Year 1985/86 

Public hearing concerning proposed 
budget of $136,537,960. 

Mr. Turpen told the Commission that the airline community will appear 
at the next meeting to comment on the budget. He said that the 
airlines accepted the budget in its entirety with the exception of 
the item on carts. 



Minutes, Special Meeting, January 22, 1985, Page 12 



Commissioner Tsougarakis asked what the airlines stand on carts was. 

Mr. Turpen responded that they did not feel the Airport should offer 
free carts. 



10. Proposed Increase on Parking Fees 

Public hearing concerning recommended 
increases in employee parking fees in 
Lot D and the garage. 

Mr. Turpen told the Commission that tenants were notified of the 
public hearing on the rate increase. A subsequent announcement was 
sent to tenants regarding the location of the meeting. 

Mr. Turpen explained that tenant organizations like the airlines 
provide parking slots for their employees. Rent-a-car employees 
typically pay for their own. 

Mr. Turpen proposed that the resolution reflect that the rate will be 
reviewed and adjusted with the garage rate. 

Mr. Turpen said that up until 1980 $5.00 a quarter was charged for 
parking. 



F. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

The following item was reintroduced by commissioner Goosby. 

1. Report on the Development of Airport Land Utilization Plan 

Commissioner Goosby asked Mr. Turpen if any revisions had been made 
to the proposal. He saw no reference to a survey for alternatives to 
the West of Bayshore property. He felt that all facets of the 
program should be spelled out. 

Mr. Turpen responded that at this stage there would be no discussion 
of alternatives. He said that in accordance with the Lease and Use 
Agreement the Airport, with the exception of maintenance, is not to 
expend any funds, including staff time, on the development of the 
West of Bayshore property. 

Mr. Turpen said that the disposition of that property lies in the 
hands of the Mayor and the Director of Properties. He said that the 
Commission authorized him to transfer that property to the- Director 
of Properties at the appropriate time; he still retains the 
authority. Mr. Turpen explained that he must first declare it 
surplus to the Director of Properties who, in turn, declares it 
surplus to the Board of Supervisors. The Board then transfers the 
administrative responsibilities from the Airport to the Director of 
Properties. 

Mr. Turpen explained that the property has not been transferred 
because the Airport is still doing maintenance as part of the flood 
control program. He also said there has been a problem with snakes 
in the interchange. Mr. Turpen further explained that he was not 



Minutes, Special Meeting, January 22, 1985, Page 13 



certain the Airport would not want a portion of the less desirable 
property opposite the Airport interchange for some type of Airport 
related activity, possibly for rent-a-cars. 

Mr. Turpen explained that the Airport has no authority over the West 
of Bayshore and will not have unless the Airport has an alternative 
which uses the West of Bayshore, the airlines agree to modify the 
Lease and Use Agreement and the Mayor agrees to allow the Airport to 
use that portion of the property. 

Commissioner Goosby recommended communicating this discussion to the 
Mayor and her liaison to the Airport. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked if it is possible to come up with a 
solution to the drainage problem. 

Mr. Turpen said he would look into it. 



K. TRAILING CALENDAR: 

There was no discussion of trailing calendar items, 



ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 10:00 A.M. to go into closed session. 





' dJk~ \JuUL Jh-d- 
J^an Caramatti 

Dmmission Secretary 



/ 



Minutes, Special Meeting, January 22, 1985, Page 14 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




D OCL 



MINUTES 



Special Meeting 
February 5, 1985 



DIANNE FE1NSTEIN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

WILLIAM K. COBLENTZ 

Vice-President 

DR. Z.L. GOOSBY 

J. EDWARD FLEISHELL 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 



LOUIS A.TURPEN 

Director of Airports 



San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

February 5, 1985 



Calendar 


Agenda 




Section 


Item 


Title 


A. 




CALL TO ORDER: 


B. 




ROLL CALL: 


C. 




ANNOUNCEMENT I 


D. 




DIRECTOR'S REI 



Resolution 
Number 



Page 

3 
3 
3 



E. 

F. 



Progress Report on 1-380 
Construction Program 

South Terminal 
Carpet Bid 

ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 



4-5 
6 



Airport Motor Coach Service 
Agreement - Authorization to Bid 



Airport Limousine Service 
Lease - Approval of Lease 
and Authorization to Bid 



85-0019 



6-9 



Airports Commission Budget 
for Fiscal Year 1985/86 

Increase in Employee 
Parking Fees 

Lease for Hosiery and 
Related Gifts-Authorization 
of Pre-Bid Conference 



85-0020 



85-0021 



9-13 



13-15 



15-16 



Lease of Crab and Seafood 
Kiosks-Authorization of 
Pre-Bid Conference 



85-0022 



16 



Lease of "Forget-Me-Nof 
Shop-Authorization of 
Pre-Bid Conference 



85-0023 



16 



10. 



Lease of Sunglasses 
Kiosk-Authorization of 
Pre-Bid Conference 



85-0024 



16 



11. 



Bid Call: Construction 
of Glass Windscreens at 
Eight Entrances of the 
International Terminal 
and Connectors 



85-0025 



16 



Minutes, Special Meeting, February 5, 1985, Page 1 



Calendar 
Section 



Agenda 
Item 



Title 



Resolution 
Number 



Page 



G. 



12. Award or Rejection of 
Contract No. 1613 - 
Alcove Remodel First 
Floor, International 
Terminal 

CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 



85-0026 



17 



13. 



14. 



15. 



16. 



17. 



18. 



19. 



20, 



Approval of Amendment No. 2 
to Agreement of Sub-sublease 
between American Airlines, Inc. 
and Pacific Southwest Airlines 

Approval of Amendment No. 2 
to Agreement of Sub-sublease 
between American Airlines, Inc, 
and Trans World Airlines, Inc. 

Bid Call: Airport Contract 
No. 1250G - Pavement Grooving, 
R/W 19L, North End 

Rejection of Bids and Author- 
ization to Rebid Contract 
No. 1325 - Maintenance 
Facility Improvements, Auto 
Maintenance Shop 

Tenant Improvement: 

TWA Ambassador Club (T-2906) 

Statistical Adjustments 
for 1984-85 Joint Use 
Billings under Lease 
and Use Agreement 

Request for Approval of 
Travel/Training for 
Airports Commission 
Representative 

Settlement of Claims Not 
Exceeding $2,500.00 

PUBLIC HEARING: 



85-0027 



85-0028 



85-0029 



85-0030 



85-0031 



85-0032 



85-0033 



85-0034 



17 



17 



18 



18 



18 



18 



21. 



Amendment of Rules of 
Order 

CORRESPONDENCE: 

TRAILING CALENDAR: 

CLOSED SESSION: 

ADJOURNMENT: 



19 
19 
19 
19 
19 



Minutes, Special Meeting, February 5, 1985, Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission 

Special Meeting 
February 5, 1985 



CALL TO ORDER: 

The special meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:00 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



B. ROLL CALL: 

Present : 



Absent : 



Commissioners Morris Bernstein, 
William K. Coblentz, Z. L. Goosby, 
Athena Tsougarakis 

Commissioner J. Edward Fleishell 



C. ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 



In accordance with Section 54957.1 of 
the Brown Act, Jean Caramatti, 
Commission Secretary, announced 
unanimous adoption of Resolution No. 
85-0018 approving the appointment of 
Ron Driscoll as Chief of Police and 
James Gibbs as Deputy Chief of Police 
at the closed session of January 22, 
1985. 



D. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 



Progress Report on the 1-380 Highway Construction Program 

Lou Turpen, Director of Airports, said that the report before the 
Commission outlines the progress of the Interchange to date. He said 
that currently emphasis is on the 1-380 connection to the Airport as 
well as the 1-380 viaduct connecting the Airport with Interstate 380. 

Mr. Turpen showed the Commission photos of the construction site. He 
said he will offer quarterly reports on the status of the 
construction. 



Minutes, Special Meeting, February 5, 1985, Page 3 



South Terminal Carpet Bid 

Mr. Turpen said that the Commission should have received the memo 
from the City Attorney recommending that we reject all bids and rebid 
this contract. 

Commissioner Coblentz said he agreed with the City Attorney's 
opinion. He said there is a very substantial difference and in light 
of the City Attorney's opinion and after reviewing all the material 
asked that all bids be rejected and new bids be invited for this 
project. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked why the omission was not discovered 
sooner. He asked if it was a technical error and if it could be 
overlooked. He said he would not vote for a bid that is hundreds of 
thousands of dollars more. 

Don Garibaldi, Airports General Counsel, explained that the bids come 
in sealed envelopes. He said that Mr. Yuen's division was handling 
the bid opening and he did not know why the error was not discovered 
sooner. As outlined in his memo to the Commission, this was not a 
technical, minor defect. 

Jason Yuen, Administrator, Bureau of Planning and Coinstruction, said 
the omission was discovered 20 minutes after the bids were opened. 
Mr. Yuen said the contractor was immediately notified and he offered 
to submit a signature. The City Attorney said the signature could 
not be accepted after the bid opening. 

Commissioner Bernstein said contractors should be advised and 
reminded of all the technicalities. 

Mr. Yuen responded that the necessity to submit a signature and bid 
bonds and all other documents is in the written instructions to the 
bidders. There is also a pre-bid meeting. Mr. Yuen said this is a 
human error; it was not because the contractor was not informed that 
he needs to sign his bid. 

Mr. Don Featherstun of Petit and Martin, representing Monroe 
Schneider, said that he is aware that the City Attorney has issued a 
decision not to accept the bid. He said he disagreed with that 
opinion. He said a bid is nothing more than an offer and there are no 
requirements for an offer to be signed. The only requirement for this 
signature came out of the solicitation itself. The solicitation 
clearly said that it was discretionary on the part of the City to 
waive the signature, if necessary. He understood that the Commission 
has some concern that if they don't reject they are likely to face a 
bid protest. 

Commissioner Coblentz said that he did not know about the other 
Commission members but he and Mr. Fleishell had the opportunity to 
read Mr. Featherstun' s brief and felt it was very compelling. He said 
the Commission was sympathetic and perhaps even favorable towards Mr. 
Featherstun' s point of view but he could not vote in opposition to the 
City Attorney's opinion. 

Mr. Featherstun said that they were brought into this fairly late and 
the memo they did is somewhat incomplete. He said additional research 
has been done and additional cases found that he thought would satisfy 
the Commission's concern that they might be sued on a bid protest. He 



Minutes, Special Meeting, February 5, 1985, Page 4 



said the State of California cases indicate that unless there is a 
showing of fraud by this Commission the courts are going to uphold any 
award of the contract the Commission makes. He said that the one case 
that the City Attorney is relying on is a 1900 case. Mr. Featherstun 
said it was his understanding that it has not been recited as good law 
since 1913. The cases to which he referred have been included in a 
memo he has prepared and will submit to the Commission. Those cases 
are in the 50' s and the 60' s. He asked that the City Attorney review 
the memo. 

Commissioner Coblentz said that he didn't see any other way but to 
reject all bids and start from the beginning. 

Commissioner Goosby said that the action the Commission is taking is 
in recognition of the fact that they are concerned about the lowest 
bid going out the window. He said he understood that all the bids are 
out in the open and the work has to be redone, however, there is 
nothing the Commission can do about it at this point. 

Mr. Featherstun said his concern is that in the course of cancelling 
the bid the Commission is setting a dangerous precedent for the 
future. He said that if some contractor wants to find out what his 
competitor's bids are all he has to do is bid ridiculously low and 
leave off the signature. When the bids are opened he will find out 
what everyone else bid. Mr. Featherstun said the Commission will have 
opened up a way to challenge the integrity of the bidding system. He 
felt it would be in the City's best interest to accept this bid, which 
is $600,000 lower than the next bid, and not open up that loophole. 

Commissioner Goosby responded that it would seem that the proper way 
to close that loophole would be to not accept his bid and take the 
next lowest bid. 

Mr. Featherstun responded that the Commission will be passing up a 
perfectly good bid and have to explain to the public why a $600,000 
lower bid was rejected. 

Commissioner Coblentz suggested that the brief be submitted to Mr. 
Garibaldi and this item will be reviewed at a special meeting to be 
called by the Chair. 

Jason Yuen suggested that the Commission go ahead with the rejection 
and then if the City Attorney finds that there is a compelling reason 
to reverse his opinion the Commission can void the resolution and 
proceed at the next Commission meeting. 

Mr. Turpen explained that if we proceed with the rejection and the 
City Attorney's position in this matter remains the same we will 
already be in the process of rebidding this contract. If the City 
Attorney were to change his opinion then we could call a spe.cial 
meeting, rescind the rejection and take whatever action the Commission 
would deem appropriate at that time. He recommended setting a time 
for a special meeting. 

Commissioner Coblentz asked that Mr. Garibaldi receive 

Mr. Featherstun' s brief today. He asked Mr. Garibaldi when he thought 

he would have an opportunity to review the brief. 

Mr. Garibaldi responded that his review would be completed by the end 
of the week. 

Commissioner Coblentz suggested that a meeting be scheduled for Monday 
at 9:00 A.M. 



Minutes, Special Meeting, February 5, 1985, Page 5 



E. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

There were no items initiated by Commissioners, 



F. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

The following item was put over and will await the call of the Chair. 

3. Airport Motor Coach Service Agreement - Authorization to Bid 

Resolution approving contract 
documents for Airport Motor Coach 
Service Agreement and authorization 
to bid. 

Commissioner Coblentz said that like the rest of the Commission he has 
reviewed in detail the Airport Motor Coach Service Agreement - 
Authorization to Bid and received a plethora of material which raised 
a number of questions. His questions concerned the type of service, 
the busses, the criteria for payment, wages, etc. He intends to 
submit these questions in writing to the staff and invited all other 
members of the Commission to do the same. As a result, he asked that 
the item not be taken off calendar but put on calendar subject to a 
call by the Chair with the appropriate notice. He felt that in this 
way the Commission will have their questions answered and the bid that 
will eventually be put out will be fair to all parties. 

Mr. Turpen said the item will be placed on the trailing calendar and 
will be at the call of the Chair. He said staff will promptly respond 
to any questions received from the Commission. 

Mr. Turpen asked that anyone wishing to submit written comments to his 
office do so no later than the 15th. 

Commissioner Coblentz said he would like to meet with staff and one 
other Commissioner, possibly Commissioner Tsougarakis, to discuss this. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said she would like to attend. She asked 
that the item return to the calendar within the next month if possible. 



The following item was unanimously adopted. 

4. Airport Limousine Service Lease - Approval of Lease and Authorization 
to Bid 

No. 85-0019 Resolution approving contract 

documents for Airport Limousine 
Service Lease and authorizing staff 
to bid the lease. 

Commissioner Coblentz said he understood that the Airport cannot 
require that minorities or women participate in each bid and asked 
about the 5 percent preference. 



Minutes, Special Meeting, February 5, 1985, Page 6 



Mr. Turpen explained that although the Airport cannot require 
minority/women participation a 5 percent preference is given to 
encourage their participation. In addition there is a 5 percent 
preference for local participants. 

Commissioner Coblentz asked if the 35 percent requirement was out. 

Mr. Turpen responded that it was. 

Commissioner Goosby said that the one-third goal in the 
specifications is not a mandatory requirement. He felt it was 
important to make it understood that staff had to revise it from a 40 
percent expectation of a joint venture to a one-third goal of 
minority or women vendors to create a joint venture. If minority or 
women vendors cannot be found then the bid is submitted without 
them. He suggested that the Airport exhaust all remedies under the 
ordinance that have to do with setting a goal without set asides and 
without requiring a certain percentage of minority participation. If 
a bidder wants to try to get the edge he will be motivated to include 
women or minorities. Commissioner Goosby felt that if we still 
aren't successful in meeting the terms and goals of the ordinance 
after a year we can look at set asides for this type of a venture. 



Commissioner Bernstein asked Mr. Melvin Brewer of Brewer Limousine 
Service if he wished to address the Commission. 

Mr. Brewer asked to have the opportunity to speak after he has heard 
what others had to say. 

Commissioner Bernstein: Al Arnaud, attorney for Associated Limousine, 

Mr. Arnaud said that Associated Limousine of San Francisco suggests 
that there be a requirement that the bidder have current and valid 
San Francisco limousine permits in a sufficient number to service the 
area from the Airport into San Francisco. The purpose of those 
permits is to regulate the operation of limousine service within the 
City and to protect the public. He said that if the Commission does 
not include that as a requirement in the bidding process then that 
situation can create a conflict between the Police Commission's 
efforts to regulate limousine service within the City and County of 
San Francisco and the Airports Commission's efforts to regulate 
service from the Airport to the City. 

Ms. Gittens said that permits to San Francisco and the other Bay Area 
counties are included in the bid and the successful bidder must have 
them prior to commencement of the agreement not prior to bidding. 

Mr. Arnaud said that they were talking about two different permits. 
Staff is talking about a State Public Utilities permit, i.e. 
stagecoach passenger permit. He is referring to the permits" that are 
required by the City and County of San Francisco and obtained through 
the Police Commission to operate within the City and County of San 
Francisco. He said that limousines are regulated by the City as well 
as by the Public Utilities Commission. 

Commissioner Coblentz said that the successful bidder who does not 
have those permits will be given a certain amount of time in which to 
obtain them. 



Minutes, Special Meeting, February 5, 1985, Page 7 



Commissioner Bernstein called on Mr. Fuller of Fuller Limousine 
Service to address the Commission. 

Mr. Fuller said that about three years ago he tried to obtain a 
permit from the Police Department but was told he did not need one to 
operate in the City of San Francisco as long as he had the State 
permit. 

Mr. Fuller asked if the purpose in making the minority participation 
51 percent was to get minorities involved in the bid process. 

Mr. Turpen responded that there would be a 5 percent preference 
offered to a firm that was 51 percent minority owned, or, in a 
partnership where there was a 35 percent minority ownership of the 
partnership. There was a question as to a set aside requirementof 40 
percent for minority involvement in which the bidder would have to 
meet one of the minority criteria in order to bid on the contract. 
The City Attorney, working with the Human Rights Commission, has 
determined that that type of set aside would be inappropriate at this 
time. 

Commissioner Bernstein called on Mr. Michael Harris of the San 
Francisco Limousine Company to address the Commission. 

Mr. Harris said that certain companies have certain advantages over 
minority companies that wish to operate out of the Airport. He said 
that companies currently operating out of the Airport are claiming 
that "pirate" companies are taking potential clients. 

Mr. Harris said that there is not enough business in San Francisco 
that can be acquired by new minority firms. These companies are 
forced into a position where they must find some type of income to 
keep them functioning. When a driver takes a run to the Airport from 
a hotel in downtown San Francisco it is much more profitable to go 
back to San Francisco with passengers. He said that if Associated 
Limousine lost the Airport they would virtually go out of business 
because they would lose the hotel concessions. These companies will 
not run empty in one direction or with a non-paying load or a 
low-paying load to the Airport and empty back into San Francisco. 

Mr. Harris felt that the best course to take is to push for a joint 
venture between a minority collection of drivers and force 
Associated, Golden State or Airport Connection to work with these 
minority firms. He felt that the overall purpose is to give fair 
service to the clients and to split those profits among everyone who 
is working within the City. 

Mr. Harris said that Associated Limousine and the other operators 
that are in the Airport have been given these permits without a 
bidding process. They have not followed any of the City or State 
affirmative action requirements. Mr. Harris said that when' the 51 
percent minority ownership was first discussed the limousine 
companies began approaching minority companies. Since the requirment 
was diluted those same companies have beem trying to go around the 
minorities to keep power within those few companies that operate 
within the Airport. 

Mr. Harris felt that the Airports Commission owes it to the people of 
San Francisco to take a firm stand and be willing, if necessary, to 
go to court and fight to keep a minority base within whatever 
operation goes into San Francisco Airport. Mr. Harris said they need 



Minutes, Special Meeting, February 5, 1985, Page 8 



a Commission that will stand behind some type of affirmative action 
and not use the threat of potential lawsuits or future problems as a 
way of diluting the bid specs and going back to the system as it has 
been for years. 

Commissioner Bernstein said it was the policy of the Commission and 
the Director to see that everyone has a fair chance. 

Commissioner Goosby quoted the bid specs, instruction III, under 
C: . ."prospective bidders who may not qualify individually as stated 
above are encouraged to form joint ventures, partnerships or 
corporations with organizations which do meet the bidder 
qualifications, however, one idividual must meet the qualifications 
specified in A above and bidders may not use their cumulative 
experience or fleet levels to meet the bidder qualifications." In 
other words, we are encouraging a joint venture as opposed to 
requiring it. If the bidder does not meet this goal there is nothing 
the Commission can do. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked what "bid preference" meant. 

Mr. Turpen responded that bid preference means that a bidder gets a 5 
percent bonus if they are either 51 percent minority or 35 percent 
minority in a partnership. The reasoning is that if the law, which 
has not yet been tested, does not result in successful minority 
participation then there would be a rethinking in terms of requiring 
the set aside. At this point the City Attorney has recommended that 
we go with the 5 percent preference points and determine whether or 
not that percentage would satisfy our overall goals for percentage of 
minority contribution. If it does not, the City Attorney has 
indicated that set asides would then be invoked. 

Commissioner Goosby said that the specs should spell out the 
expectation of an equal risk for an equal share of the profits. He 
wants to avoid the situation of a majority company joint venturing 
with a minority firm in order to get the 5 percent preference and 
then sticking the minority firm with the less lucrative part of the 
business. He felt the Commission should have the assurance that this 
situation will be guarded against before voting on the bid specs. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the lease specifications talk about the 
MBE/WBE/LBE certification. He also said that Commissioner Goosby's 
concerns could be communicated to HRC in writing. 

Commissioner Coblentz agreed with Commissioner Goosby. He said the 
Human Rights Commission should keep a close eye on this. He 
suggested that staff also keep a watchful eye and in the event this 
situation does happen the Commission should consider terminating the 
agreement. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis agreed with Commissioner Goosby as well. 



The following item was adopted as amended by a 3-1 vote with Commissioner 
Bernstein casting the dissenting vote. 

5. Airports Commission Budget for Fiscal Year 1985/86 

No. 85-0020 Resolution approving the proposed 

Fiscal Year 1986/86 Budget of 
$136,542,820. 



Minutes, Special Meeting, February 5, 1985, Page 9 



Mr. Turpen said the commission has already seen the budget and he has 
no further comments to offer. He said the airline community 
indicated they could not attend our last meeting at which a public 
hearing on the budget was held and wanted to address the Commission 
at this meeting. 

Commissioner Bernstein called on Mr. Paul Van Wert of United Airlines 
to address the Commission. 

Mr. Van Wert said he was addressing the Commission as Chairman of the 
San Francisco Airline/Airport Affairs Committee. On behalf of all 
the airlines serving the Airport he offered congratulations to 
Commissioner Tsougarakis on her appointment to the Airports 
Commission. 

Mr. Van Wert introduced Roger Cohen, Director of Civic Affairs for 
TWA; Brendan Carmady, Director of Properties for American Airlines 
from Dallas; Jim Chamberlain, Regional Director of Properties for 
Delta Airlines in Atlanta; and, Chairman of the Foreign Flag 
Carriers' Committee, Fudge Kuwano of Japan Airlines. 

Mr. Van Wert said they were here to reaffirm their opposition to the 
proposal to offer a free luggage cart service at the Airport and the 
funding for that service in the budget. He said the airlines have 
gone on record as opposing this move with the Mayor's Office, with 
the Finance Committee of the Board of Supervisors, with this 
Commission and with the staff for more than a year. 

Mr. Van Wert said that a good piece of advice to follow is "if it 
ain't broke don't fix it." He felt that admonition was applicable in 
this case. The luggage cart service may need some fine tuning but 
the staff and the vendor are working on it; it does not need a major 
overhaul. Mr. Van Wert said that the 1980's brought with it terms 
like Reaganomics, lower taxes, deregulation, less government 
involvement in business and user fees, meaning you pay for what you 
use. He felt that the system we have in place at the Airport today 
is consistent with that philosophy. 

Mr. Van Wert recounted a recent meeting where an investment his 
company had made was being scrutinized. They talked about its 
profitability and said it was finally determined that the degree of 
profitability was only $119 a month against a fairly large 
investment. It was pointed out that if they had adopted the other 
alternative available to them there would have been a 
$100,000-a-month negative cash flow. Mr. Van Wert felt that was 
analagous to the situation at the Airport. He said that the luggage 
cart service concession, though not a big winner, is a winner and the 
alternative is an enormous economic loser. 

Mr. Van Wert said that he realized that the funds appropriated for 
this are a part of the overall budget but suggested that the funding 
for the free luggage cart service be dealt with separately from the 
budget. He said that the Airline Committee has reviewed the budget 
with the staff and are prepared to endorse its adoption except for 
this item. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked what happens to our agreement with the 
airlines if we decide not to use free carts. She asked if the money 
is left in the budget but not spent are we still okay with the 
airlines. 

Mr. Turpen said that if we don't spend the money it will remain in 
the budget and at the end of next year it becomes part of a surplus 



Minutes, Special Meeting, February 5, 1985, Page 10 



carry forward as defined by the Lease and Use Agreement. The excess 
is carried forward and is applied to the next year's rates and 
charges. The Airlines are concerned because their rentals will be 
based on our anticipated expenditure of that $500,000. The airlines 
will have to wait a full year until that money is credited back to 
them. 

Commissioner Goosby said that the Commission is interested in 
accomplishing this at a reasonable expenditure and $500,000 to a 
$1,000,000 is not a reasonable expenditure. He said that he does not 
want to take any definitive action in Mr. Fleishell's absence since 
he is the Commissioner most interested in this item. Commissioner 
Goosby said the item could be left out and then staff could go for a 
supplemental appropriation. He said he told Commissioner Fleishell 
about his reservations on the amount of the expenditure. 

Commissioner Coblentz, having opposed this from the beginning solely 
on the basis of cost, suggested that the budget be approved with the 
exception of the cart item. He felt that a lot of items are going to 
be cut and it would be somewhat irresponsible to ask for $500,000. 
It seemed to him that if the Board and the Mayor want that 
expenditure let them so request it. The Commission will adhere to 
their wishes. He felt the experiment should go forward. 

Commissioner Bernstein said that the carts were an absurd expenditure 
however, the Commission did adopt a resolution. 

Mr. Turpen explained to Commissioner Bernstein that when the 
Commission first suggested that we pursue free carts with 
unrestricted use in the Customs area staff prepared a Commission 
resolution and subsequently went to the Board of Supervisors for 
approval. That resolution was for a little more than $150,000, but 
considerably less than $500,000. The Board of Supervisors approved 
that portion for purchase of the carts but refused the portion which 
would support the operation. We wound up with carts but no way to 
move them back into Customs. Staff, therefore, has not proceeded 
with that alternative because it was operationally impossible to 
execute. 

Mr. Turpen said that we are annually experiencing about a million 
international arrivals. Just on the assumption of $1 a cart would 
give some feel for the costs involved but the 60-day experiment 
should give some quantification of the true dollar amount. Staff is 
prepared to move ahead with the test on March 1st. At that time, we 
will have a better understanding of what the impact can be. 

Mr. Turpen said the Commission has the option of removing the item 
from the budget and subsequently developing a supplemental if 
necessary, or, the item can be left in the budget. 

Commissioner Coblentz said that although they did approve the carts 
no one really knew the enormity of the cost. 

Commissioner Bernstein felt that the budget should be adopted as is 
and, if necessary, we can go to the Finance Committee or the Mayor 
and have the item lined out. He did not feel the item should be 
taken out in Commissioner Fleishell's absence. 

Commissioner Coblentz said he would not go for that. He asked that 
the budget be approved with the exception of the carts. He did not 
think that respect for anyone's absence was appropriate. 



Minutes, Special Meeting, February 5, 1985, Page 11 



Commissioner Tsougarakis asked why the need to purchase carts. 

Commissioner Coblentz responded that Smarte Carte owns the carts, not 
the Airport. 

Mr. Turpen added that the current cart operator rents carts for $1 

Airport-wide and the passenger gets 25 cents when it is returned. 

The carts in our Customs arrivals area are the property of Smarte 

Cart. That company has been unwilling to provide a free cart system, 
other than for this experiment. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said she did not see anything wrong in going 
back to the City after the experiment has been completed with a true 
indication of the cost of a free cart operation. She did not feel 
that the cart item belonged in the budget until after the experiment 
was over and staff knew what the cost would be. 

Commissioner Bernstein still felt that in view of the fact that 
Commissioner Fleishell was so strongly in favor of free carts and due 
to the fact that the Commission did pass it, he felt that the proper 
way to handle it would be to pass the budget and then later ask 
either the Finance Committee or the Mayor to delete the item. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked what happens if the budget is adopted 
as is and the airlines don't like what we have done. 

Ms. Gittens responded that if the entire $465,000 is operating 
expense then the airlines really can't do anything about it. If a 
portion of that is later identified as capital expenditure, the 
airlines could take up to 6 months to delay it. 

Lou Turpen said that the other problem is that our current cart 
concession expires on July 16. 

Ms. Gittens clarified that the $465,000 was for the operating expense 
in addition to the $540,000 in capital cost. The carts will be 
purchased this year in order to start up the system next year. 

Mr. Van Wert, commenting on Commissioner Tsougarakis' original 
question, said that the airlines would consider it very 
unsatisfactory if half a million dollars were left in the budget and 
included in the basis on which their rates and fees were 
established. He said that if this controversy were to go on for some 
time the airlines would be funding a non-existent project with an 
interest-free loan. He said, as Dr. Goosby pointed out, the airlines 
really never get the money back so they don't consider this a 
satisfactory solution. He explained that their objective is to have 
the item eliminated from the budget and have the test cancelled. 

Mr. Van Wert said the airlines don't have a lot of faith in the test 
because they don't feel it will expose the operating problems. The 
vendor has his reputation at stake and will insure that the free cart 
system in Customs will operate smoothly. It will not expose the 
problems of a city operated system which they believe can only expand 
to the full extent of the Airport. Mr. Van Wert said that they don't 
believe that it is worthwhile to consider this matter on the basis of 
the free cart system in Customs and a pay cart system elsewhere on 
the Airport. The airlines are of the opinion that if the Commission 
pursues a free cart system anywhere on the Airport eventually there 
will be a free cart system all over the Airport. In that event, the 
Airport will be looking at $2-million in an annual budget rather than 
$500,000. Over the years millions and millions of dollars will be 
thrown away. 



Minutes, Special Meeting, February 5, 1985, Page 12 



Commissioner Bernstein felt that in view of Commissioner Fleishell's 
absence and in view of the fact that it is just a matter of whether 
to leave the item in the budget or go for a supplemental he did not 
think that the item should be removed from the budget at this time. 
He felt that the budget should be passed as is and then the item 
could be removed by the Mayor or Finance Committee. 

Commissioner Goosby said that because the Mayor and the Board of 
Supervisors are interested in a free cart system he felt there was a 
good chance of getting approval for a supplemental appropriation. 
Commissioner Goosby asked that the resolution contain an amendment 
that would delete this one expenditure but protect the $90,000 for 
the experiment that's already in this year's budget. 

Commissioner Goosby asked that Commissioner Fleishell be told the 
reasons for the deletion. 

Mr. Turpen pointed out that the Airport intends to move ahead on 
March 1st with the trial and that the vote today has no bearing on 
the Airport's intent to proceed with the trial. 



The following item was put over to the February 19 meeting. 

6. Increase in Employee Parking Fees 

Resolution authorizing increases in 
employee parking fees in Lot D and the 
garage. 

Mr. Turpen explained that a public hearing on the increase was held 
at the last meeting. He said there were speakers in the audience who 
would like to address this issue. 

Terry Gross, Budget Rent-A-Car, said he was present the last time the 
Commission raised the fees. He said he complained then that there 
was no security in the parking lot and broken glass on the pavement. 
Mr. Gross said that a fellow employee had her car broken into in 
broad daylight. He complained that there was still four inches of 
water under part of the parking lot from the last rain. 

Commissioner Coblentz was sympathetic to their problem but said that 
even though he parks his car in Embarcadero One it was broken into. 
He thought they were entitled to better security. 

Mr. Gross added that they would also like lights, a dry pavement and 
the glass removed. 

Commissioner Coblentz asked for a report by the next meeting 
regarding security measures and cleaning up the lot. 

Mr. Gross said they were promised better security the last time the 
fees were raised. He complained that the Commission wanted more and 
more money but the employees don't get anything they are promised. 

Mr. Turpen suggested the item be put over and he will take a look at 
the current levels of maintenance and security. 

Commissioner Coblentz did not want to put the rent increase over. He 
said that perhaps the Commission will have charge more for security 
and safety. 



Minutes, Special Meeting, February 5, 1985, Page 13 



Mr. Gross said it isn't like they were parking in the garage where 
they are just a few steps from the job; they have to get on a bus. 
He said the bus service has improved. 

Mr. Turpen added that the service is free. 

Mr. Gross argued that they pay for it. 

Commissioner Coblentz asked what the monthly cost was. 

Mr. Gross responded that it was $32 a quarter. He said they were 
paying $5.00 for three months. 

Commissioner Coblentz said he thought the rates were low and should 
be raised but that the employees are entitled to safety and to a 
clean lot. He moved that the item be put over until the next meeting 
and asked for a full report. He said he would push very hard to 
raise the rates. 

Ms. Rosario Angelo, rental car employee, said the Airport is 
supposedly supplying free transportation from lots C and D but that 
transportation is also available to the public. They are not paying 
an additional increase in the public parking. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the public parking was assessed at least 
one rate increase, possibly two, since the last time the employee 
rate was increased. The shuttle bus operation costs $1.5-million a 
year and a significant portion of that is paid for by the persons in 
the public parking area. He said the Commission directed staff to 
take a look at employee parking rates. He said it is true that we 
charged $5.00 a quarter for years but unfortunately there are only 
2,200 acres of property at the Airport to conduct all of our 
operations. Parking is becoming more and more conjested, and more 
and more of a premium. He felt that the rate increase is extremely 
reasonable in view of the costs involved in supporting that operation 
and the competition for more parking spaces. 

Ms. Angelo said that the airlines supply free parking for their 
employees but rent-a-car agencies do not. She said the increase will 
take effect as soon as it is voted on and in 1986 there will be 
another increase. She complained that there is no ceiling. 

Mr. Turpen said that was correct. He said there will not be a 
ceiling on any of the fees at the Airport simply because our costs of 
operation continue to rise. It costs us more to get a rent a car 
today then it did 5 or 10 years ago. He said we are all being paid 
more today than we were 5 or 10 years ago. Mr. Turpen said the 
Airport's costs continually go up and they must be supported. We try 
and make it as equitable as possible considering the amount of 
employee useage there is on the shuttle bus. 

Ms. Angelo said that the biggest complaint as far as the rental 
agencies are concerned is that the rates are raised but the employees 
do not get what they are promised. 

Ms. Angelo said that prior to the last meeting when the decision was 
made to increase the rates the tenants were informed that the meeting 
would be held at the Airport. It was not until the day of the 
meeting that they were told that it was being held in City Hall. 
Consequently, those individuals who were interested were not able to 
attend. 



Minutes, Special Meeting, February 5, 1985, Page 14 



Commissioner Tsougarakis responded that that was why it was put over. 

Mr. Turpen said the item would be put over in order to prepare 
reports on security, the condition of the lot, the cost of supporting 
the lot, and a breakdown on what it costs to support that lot. He 
said he would be happy to send her a copy of that report. 



The following items were unanimously adopted. 

7. Lease for Hosiery and Related Gifts - Authorization of Pre-Bid 
Conference 

No. 85-0021 Resolution approving leasehold 

specifications and authorizing Director 
to hold Pre-Bid Conference for the 
lease of hosiery and related gifts in 
the North Terminal. 

Mr. Turpen explained that the next four items are part of the North 
Terminal concession previously approved by the Commission. The 
initial concession group that went out in 1979 has expired. Staff 
approached the Commission with a concession plan and this is a result 
of that plan. The request is for authorization to hold a pre-bid 
conference and solicit from perspective bidders their comments as to 
the draft specification. He said that once the pre-bid conference is 
concluded staff will come back to the Commission with the attendees' 
comments for the Commission's consideration in finalizing the 
specifications. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked how many square feet the hosiery 
operation would have and what the rent would be. 

Ms. Gittens responded there would be 333 square feet of retail 
space. The minimum rental in the bid will be $50,000 against a 20 
percent of gross revenue. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked how much per foot the store will take in 
in hosiery. 

Ms. Gittens responded that staff was assuming that the store can 
generate $250,000 in gross revenue. 

Commissioner Bernstein said that that would be almost $800 a foot. 

Mr. Turpen said the Duty Free concession is 3700 square feet. 

Ms. Gittens added that Duty Free's minimum is $1,025,000 a year. She 
said staff has looked at a couple of operations and felt that 
$250,000 a year seemed to be a reasonable goal. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked how many shops in the Airport are making 
their minimum, aside from food concessions, Duty Free and those who 
know how to merchandise. 

Ms. Gittens responded that of the small stores, as indicated in 
previous reports, ABC Cigar and Paradies Flower were not making their 
minimums. 

Commissioner Bernstein said it takes a pretty good store to do $400 a 
foot. He said that $400 a foot would be about $130,000 with a 
$50,000 minimum. He said there is no possible way for a 
concessionaire to do $800 a foot unless they are geniuses. 



Minutes, Special Meeting, February 5, 1985, Page 15 



Commissioner Goosby said that this is simply permission to have a 
pre-bid conference. 

Mr. Turpen said that the Commission's concern on the minimum bid can 
be highlighted at the pre-bid conference and staff can return with 
specific reaction to that minimum bid. 

Commissioner Bernstein said you can't very well rent stores without 
knowing how much they are supposed to do per foot. He said that in 
50 years of retailing he never made more than 38 percent gross profit, 

Mr. Turpen said that staff has suggested changing the market basket 
for price maximums on various sundry-type items for the South 
Terminal principal concessionaire. He said the present market basket 
involves major hotels and other airports. He suggested that if we 
are trying to control prices perhaps we should pick an alternate 
market basket for at least a selection of merchandise and require 
that as part of the lease. 

Commissioner Goosby said the Commission should look at the whole 
picture to determine if it will decrease our revenue and how much 
less the City will receive for the general fund. 



8. Lease of Crab and Seafood Kiosks - Authorization of Pre-Bid Conference 

No. 85-0022 Resolution approving leasehold 

specifications and authorizing 
Director to hold a Pre-Bid Conference 
for the lease of crab and seafood 
kiosks in the North Terminal. 



9. Lease of a "Forget-Me-Not" Shop - Authorization of Pre-Bid Conference 

No. 85-0023 Resolution approving leasehold 

specifications and authorizing 
Director to hold a Pre-Bid Conference 
for the lease of "Forget-Me-Not" Shop, 
selling candy, flowers and greeting 
cards in the North Terminal. 



10. Lease of Sunglasses Kiosk - Authorization of Pre-Bid Conference 

No. 85-0024 Resolution approving leasehold 

specifications and authorizing 
Director to hold Pre-Bid Conference 
for the lease of sunglasses kiosks in 
the North Terminal. 



11. Bid Call: Construction of Glass Windscreens at Eight Entrances of 
the International Terminal and Connectors 

No. 85-0025 Resolution authorizing bid call for 

windscreens which are required to 
prevent outside air from entering the 
public lobbies and the airlines' 
check-in areas. 



Minutes, Special Meeting, February 5, 1985, Page 16 



12. Award or Rejection of Contract No. 1613, Alcove Remodel First Floor, 
International Terminal 

No. 85-0026 Resolution awarding or rejecting the 

bid for Contract No. 1613. 

Mr. Dennis Bouey, Deputy Director for Facilities, Operations and 
Maintenance, explained that this is a small alteration job for 
concessions down in the meeter/greeter area in the International 
Terminal. 

Mr. Bouey recommended approval. He said that staff sent the 
specifications to eight building exchanges and made follow up phone 
calls to 26 contractors. Only one bid was received. That bid was 
$3000 over the budget. Staff feels that if the bid is rejected 
there is no indication that additional bids will be received the next 
time and this bid might very likely be higher. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked why there was one bid since calls were 
made. 

Mr. Bouey responded that the overwhelming response has been that the 
profit margin on a job of this type is so small that companies don't 
want to waste the time. They feel that a minority-owned or 
woman-owned business will come in and get the preference. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if Echo West is a minority firm. 

Mr. Bouey responded that it is not. 



G. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

13. Approval of Amendment No. 2 to Agreement of Sub-sublease between 
American Airlines, Inc. and Pacific Southwest Airlines. 

No. 85-0027 Resolution approving Amendment No. 2 

to the Sub-sublease of a portion of 
American's Superbay Hangar space and 
ramp areas from American Airlines, 
Inc. by Pacific Southwest Airlines. 



14. Approval of Amendment No. 2 to Agreement of Sub-sublease between 
American Airlines, Inc., and Trans World Airlines, Inc. 

No. 85-0028 Resolution approving Amendment No. 2 

to the Sub-sublease of a portion of 
American's Superbay Hangar space and 
ramp areas from American Airlines, 
Inc., by Trans World Airlines. 



Minutes, Special Meeting, February 5, 1985, Page 17 



15. Bid Call - Airport Contract No. 1250G 
Pavement Grooving, R/W 19L, North End 

No. 85-0029 Resolution approving the scope, budget 

and schedule for Airport Contract No. 
1250G and authorizing the Director of 
Airports to call for bids when ready. 
The purpose of the contract is to 
groove the pavement of the north end 
of Runway 19L. Contract time is 30 
calendar days. 



16. Rejection of Bids and Authorization to Rebid Contract No. 1325 
Maintenance Facility Improvements, Auto Maintenance Shop 

No. 85-0030 Resolution rejecting all bids for 

Contract No. 1325 and authorizing the 
Director of Airports to readvertise 
and call for bids when ready. The low 
bid is substantially above the 
construction budget. 



17. Tenant Improvement: TWA Ambassador Club (T-2906) 

No. 85-0031 Remodeling of TWA's Ambassador Club 

(VIP Room) on Boarding Area B, 
$325,000. No cost to Airport. 



18. Statistical Adjustments for 1984-85 Joint Use Billings under Lease 
and Use Agreement 

No. 85-0032 Resolution adjusting 1984-85 Joint Use 

Billings pursuant to Section 101. W of 
the Airline Airport Lease and Use 
Agreement for Pacific Western Airlines 

Ltd. 



19. Request for Approval of Travel/Training for Airports Commission 
Representatives 

No. 84-0033 



20. Settlement of Claims Not Exceeding $2,500.00. 

No. 85-0034 Resolution approving the action of the 

Director of the Airports, with the 
approval of the City Attorney, in the 
settlement and compromise of claims 
not exceeding $2,500.00. Total - 
$2,118.57. 



Minutes, Special Meeting, February 5, 1985, Page 18 



H. PUBLIC HEARING: 

21. Amendment to Rules of Order: 

Resolution amending Rule 7 of Airports 
Commission's Rules of Order to change 
time of regular meetings from 
2:00 P.M. to 9:00 A.M. 

Mr. Turpen explained that this was a public hearing on an amendment 
to the Rules of Order changing the time of Airports Commission 
meetings from 2:00 PM to 9:00 AM on the first and third Tuesdays of 
each month. 

There was no public testimony. 

A resolution will be brought back to the Commission for adoption at 
the next meeting. 



I. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission. 



J. TRAILING CALENDAR: 

There was no discussion of trailing calendar items. 



K. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 10:35 A.M. to go into closed session. 




Je/an Caramatti 
Commission Secretary 



Minutes, Special Meeting, February 5, 1985, Page 19 






SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




.. 






MINUTES 



Special Meeting 
February 11, 1985 



DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

WILLIAM K. COBLENTZ 

Vice-President 

DR. Z.L. GOOSBY 

J. EDWARD FLEISHELL 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 



LOUIS A.TURPEN 

Director of Airports 



San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 






Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

February 11, 1985 



Calendar Agenda Resolution 

Section Item Title Number Page 



A. CALL TO ORDER: 2 

B. ROLL CALL: 2 

C. ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 2 

D. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 2 

E. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

1. Airport Contract No. 1410A-1: 
Carpeting for South Terminal 
Complex, Rejection of all Bids 85-0036 3-5 

F. CLOSED SESSION: 5 

G. ADJOURNMENT: 5 



Minutes, Special Meeting, February 11, 1985, Page 1 



Airports Commission 



Minutes 
of the 

Special Meeting 
February 11, 1985 



A. CALL TO ORDER: 

The special meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:00 A.M. in Room 2C, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



B. ROLL CALL: 

Present : 



Commissioners Morris Bernstein, 
William K. Coblentz, J. Edward 
Fleishell, Athena Tsougarakis 



Commissioner Z. 
at 9:05 a.m. 



L. Goosby arrived 



ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 



In accordance with Section 54957.1 of 
the Brown Act, Jean Caramatti, 
Commission Secretary, announced 
unanimous adoption of Resolution 
No. 85-0035 regarding the settlement 
of litigated claims at the Closed 
Session of February 5, 1985. 



D. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

There were no items initiated by Commissioners, 



Minutes, Special Meeting, February 11, 1985, Page 2 



E. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

The following item was adopted by a 4-1 vote with Commissioner Bernstein 
casting the dissenting vote. 

1. Airport Contract No. 1410A-1: 

Carpeting for South Terminal Complex 
Rejection of All Bids 

No. 85-0036 

Commissioner Bernstein asked Mr. Don Featherstun, attorney for Monroe 
Schneider, if he wished to address the Commission. 

Mr. Featherstun thanked the Commission and apologized for having 
created the problem. He told the Commission that he felt he has 
presented enough legal evidence to contradict the City Attorney's 
opinion and that the Commission had the discretion to accept the 
bid. He said that no competetive advantage existed for Monroe 
Schneider Associates; they are bound to their bid. 

Mr. Featherstun said they were concerned that the Airport would be 
creating a loophole for bidders. He strongly urged the Commission to 
accept their bid. 

Mr. Terry Schneider, Monroe Schneider, thanked the Commission for its 
time and patience. He said that there is no question of his 
company's intent based on the fact that his signature appears three 
different times on the proposal. 

Mr. Schneider said he did not think that any contractor would want to 
see a re-bid situation become the rule rather than the exception. He 
felt that the Commission has discretion to avoid re-bid situations. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked Commissioners Coblentz and Fleishell 
for their opinions. 

Commissioner Fleishell said he has read the briefs. He said it was 
clear, under contract law, that you can have a binding offer without 
the necessity of a signature. He said he proposed to a 
representative of Monroe Schneider that he would be inclined to 
overrule the staff if he was assured they would enter into a hold 
harmless agreement. He said they told him they were willing to 
comply with that stipulation. Commissioner Fleishell said he 
subsequently checked with the City Attorney and was advised that such 
an agreement would be contrary to public policy. He concluded that 
he will have to vote to reject all bids. 

Commissioner Fleishell said the Commission and staff has done 
everything to encourage vigorous bidding of Airport contracts and 
overcome the view in some circles that certain bidders always get the 
bid. 

Commissioner Coblentz said if he were the judge hearing this case his 
opinion would be in favor of Schneider and Associates but he must 
follow his attorney's advice. He said he would not want to appear in 
court represented by his attorney who had given advice which he did 
not follow. He, too, felt that all bids must be rejected. 

Mr. Bob Plann, American Contract, asked why all other bids were being 
rejected because of one bid. 



Minutes, Special Meeting, February 11, 1985, Page 3 



Commissioner Coblentz responded that the Commission had a 
responsibility to get the best deal they can for the Airport. He 
said there was a $600,000 difference between Schneider and the next 
bid and the Commission would be remiss in their duties and 
obligations if they went to the next bid. Commissioner Coblentz said 
the Commission does have that discretion but in the best interest of 
the City all bids should be rejected. 

Mr. Plann said that the bids show a $100,000 difference between 
Schneider and the next bidder because the City has the right to 
choose from five different products. 

Commissioner Coblentz said that staff looked at the quality of 
carpets and it was their opinion that Mr. Schneider offered a better 
quality carpet. Commissioner Coblentz said that even $100,000 was 
sufficient reason to reject all bids. 

Mr. Plann asked if it will be the policy to reject all bids the next 
time a bidder fails to submit a signature. 

Commissioner Fleishell responded that this will not be an established 
policy in every situation. In this instance there are 600,000 
reasons why the bids are being rejected. 

Mr. Plann argued that a lower bidder could purposely omit the 
signature to protect himself, or, if a bidder is too high, he would 
have the opportunity to see all the other bids. 

Commissioner Goosby said that bidding can become very political and 
prone to misuse. The directions clearly state that the page in 
question must be signed. The Commission has turned down bids in the 
past for failure to follow the directions. He felt that any time 
those directions are not followed the safest course of action is to 
consider automatic rejection unless the result would be to the 
detriment of the City. Commissioner Goosby said the Commission is 
not prepared to play games with the bids. 

Mr. Plann said that he would rather see Schneider's bid accepted 
rather than reject all bids. He said it is detrimental to all 
bidders to have their numbers exposed. 

Mr. Schneider wanted to publicly thank Mr. Plann as one of their 
finest competitors. He said they are responsible and honest and he 
wished they had more competitors like them. Mr. Schneider felt that 
the position the Commission is taking will do tremendous harm to the 
bidding process. 

Commissioner Bernstein said that some time ago Commissioner Fleishell 
suggested the Airport use bifurcated bidding and asked why that 
system was not being used. 

Mr. Jason Yuen, Administrator, Bureau of Planning and Construction, 
responded that bifurcated bidding was used but unfortunately the 
signature page comes in the second envelope with the numbers. The 
first envelope contains Human Rights Commission forms. 

Mr. Turpen said staff can only go so far to help the bidder succeed. 
The fact is the bidder did not include the signature page. Everytime 
there is some error or omission we will be faced with the same 
situation. He said the Airport repeatedly bids contracts and in his 
view the staff did everything in its power to ensure a good bid. He 
did not agree that staff has any responsibility for the fact that 
this bidder did not sign or include the page. 



Minutes, Special Meeting, February 11, 1985, Page 4 



Mr. Turpen said the City Attorney has recommended we reject all 

bids. He said he is prepared to follow the City Attorney's advice. 

He said in no way does he see this omission as a failure of Airport 
procedures. 

Mr. Yuen added that in the 15 years he has been with the Airport this 
is the first time the signature page has been omitted. 



F. CLOSED SESSION: 

There was no closed session. 



G. ADJOURNMENT: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 9:25 A.M. 



JeW-raramatti 
Commission Secretary 



Minutes, Special Meeting, February 11, 1985, Page 5 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 







MINUTES 



Special Meeting 
February 19, 1985 



DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

WILLIAM K. COBLENTZ 

Vice-President 

DR. Z.L. GOOSBY 

J. EDWARD FLEISHELL 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 



LOUIS A.TURPEIM 

Director of Airports 



San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 









Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 












Special Meeting 
February 19, 1985 






Calendar 
Section 


Agenda 
Item 




Title 


Resolution 
Number 


Page 


A. 




CALL 


TO ORDER: 




4 


B. 




ROLL 


CALL: 




4 


C. 




ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 







Special Meeting of 
January 22, 1985 

SPECIAL ITEM: 



85-0037 



Retirement Resolution 
for Walter D. Farmer 



85-0059 



DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 



Report on the Condition 
of Employee Parking 
Lots "CC" and "D" 

ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 



Airport Parking Operating 

Agreement Specifications 85-0038 

Master Concession Lease 
for Retail Sales in the 
South Terminal 85-0039 

Increase in Employee 

Parking Fees 85-0040 

Rebidding of the Parking 

Revenue Control Equipment 85-0041 

Lease Modifications - 
Skyline Candy 

Approval of Budget for 

Professional Service 

Contract, O'Brien-Kreitzberg 

& Associates, Inc., Contract 

Amendment No. 6 - $810,000.00 85-0042 



6-7 



7-8 



8-9 



Minutes, Special Meeting, February 19, 1985, Page 1 



Calendar Agenda Resolution 

Section Item Title Number Page 

9. Contract 1414AB, Boarding 
Area B, Type 11 Contract 
Modification for Interim 
Tenant Work - $342,208. 85-0043 9 

10. Rejection of Bids and 
Authorization to Rebid 
Contract No. 1521R, 
Garage Signing - Electronic 

Display Units 85-0044 9-10 

11. Award of Airport Contract 
No. 823, Field Lighting 

Building No. 2 85-0045 10 

12. Award of Contract to 
Pacific Bell for reloca- 
tion of Telephone Cables 
within the South Terminal 

Complex - $50,000 85-0046 10 

13. 5267 Assistant Airport 

Noise Abatement Officer 85-0047 10 

H. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

14. Amendment of Rules of 

Order 85-0048 11 

15. Authorization to Transfer 
$100,000 to the Art Com- 
mission for Award of 
Contract to Charles Ross 
for Skylight Prism Sculpture 
at Boarding Area B, South 

Terminal Complex 85-0049 11,13 

16. Rental Credit for 

Western Air Lines, Inc. 85-0050 11 

17. Design Review Approval - 
North Terminal Shoeshine 

Stands 85-0051 11 

18. Design Review Approval - 
Avis Rental Return Lobby 

Expansion 85-0052 ■ 11 

19. Contracts 1410ABCD, 
1410EF, and 1414AB, 
South Terminal Modern- 
ization Projects, Type 11 
Contract Modification for 
Improvements to Fire 

Alarm System-$97, 079.00 85-0053 11 

20. Modification of Lease 
and Use Agreement - 

Continental Airlines, Inc. 85-0054 12 



Minutes, Special Meeting, February 19, 1985, Page 2 



Calendar 
Section 



Agenda Resolution 
Item Title 



Number 



Page 



21. 



Modification of Lease and 
Use Agreement for Republic 
Airlines West, Inc. 



85-0055 



12 



22. Modification of Lease and 
Use Agreement - Pacific 
Southwest Airlines 



85-0056 



12 



I. 

J. 



23. 


Report on the SCR-74 
Study 




12 


24. 


Weather Service Instal- 








lation of Weather Sensing 
Instruments at SPO 


85-0057 


12 


25. 


Request for Approval of 
Travel/Training for 
Airports Commission 
Represent at i ves 


85-0058 


12 




CORRESPONDENCE: 




12 




TRAILING CALENDAR: 




13 



L. 



ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED 
SESSION: 



13 



Minutes, Special Meeting, February 19, 1985, Page 3 



Airports Commission 

Minutes 
of the 

Special Meeting 
February 19, 1985 



A. CALL TO ORDER: 

The special meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:00 A.M. in Room 2C, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



B. ROLL CALL: 

Present : 

Absent: 



Commissioners Morris Bernstein, 
Z. L. Goosby, J. Edward Fleishell, 
Athena Tsougarakis 

Commissioner William K. Coblentz 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The minutes of the special meeting of January 22, 1985 were adopted by 
order of the Commission President. 

No. 85-0037 



D. SPECIAL ITEM: 

The following item was unanimously adopted. 
1. Retirement Resolution for Walter D. Farmer 



No. 85-0059 



Resolution expressing best wishes for 
the fullest measure of health, 
happiness and fruitful retirement to 
Walter D. Farmer. 



Minutes, Special Meeting, February 19, 1985, Page 4 



E. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

2. Report on the Condition of Employee Parking Lots "CC" and M D" 

Mr. Turpen said the report was self explanatory and that the 
Commission will vote on the increase later on in the meeting. 



F. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

There were no items initiated by Commissioners. 



G. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

The following items were unanimously adopted. 

3. Airport Parking Operating Agreement Specifications. 

No. 85-0038 Resolution to approve a draft of the 

Airport Parking Operating Agreement 
and to authorize staff to hold a 
pre-bid conference. 

Mr. Turpen said he would like permission to proceed with a pre-bid 
conference for the Airport garage management contract. He said he 
will return to the Commission with a detailed report on the response 
of potential bidders on the lease specifications. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked that Commissioner Coblentz' suggestion 
be worded so that any error in accounting would be a basis for 
terminating the contract. 

Mr. Turpen responded that at this point the concept would be that 
audit discrepancies would result in substantial non-compliance. He 
said that although the wording has not yet been perfected he wanted 
to alert the Commission and said staff would forward the language to 
them when it was ready. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that in a standard contract normally the 
percentage would be 2 or 3 percent. 

Mr. Turpen said he would be happy to send the language on this 
specific suggestion to the Commission between now and the pre-bid 
conference so that the Commission members can individually respond. 



Minutes, Special Meeting, February 19, 1985, Page 5 



4. Master Concession Lease for Retail Sales in the South Terminal 

No. 85-0039 Resolution approving the lease 

specifications and authorization to 
hold a pre-bid conference for the 
Master Concession Lease and Agreement 
for Retail Merchandising Sales in the 
South Terminal Building. 

Mr. Turpen said that this item was a request for approval to hold a 
pre-bid conference and details a principal concession approach to the 
South Terminal complex. He said staff is present to respond to any 
specific questions and will return to the Commission with reactions 
to the pre-bid conference. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked if the master concession was something 
new at the Airport. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the principal concession was first utilized 
in the International Terminal and is a new concept in retailing. Mr. 
Turpen said that this concept is being used at some other airports 
but not as successfully as it is being used at SFO. He said that the 
FAA is currently using our program as a model for other airports. 
Mr. Turpen said that the principal concessionaire concept meant that 
one person is responsible for developing all the concession 
activities in that terminal. This not only includes being 
responsible for minority and small business involvement but 
developing, fixturing and finishing the interiors, as well. That 
person is responsible for putting in the product, hiring the 
personnel and in many cases subletting to minority entreprenuers; in 
short, putting the entire concession into operation. 

Mr. Turpen said the Airport has been successful in this regard in 
terms of the quality, responsibility and financial benefits. 

Commissioner Goosby added that the principal concessionaire program 
has enhanced minority participation. He said that although 
minorities were encouraged and helped to bid, they never had the 
wherewithall or the sophistication to bid low enough to get a 
concession. The principal concession approach was used to try to 
solve the problem in requiring the successful bidder to offer 25-30 
percent to women, local business and minority entreprenuers. 
Commissioner Goosby said the concept has been successful to some 
extent in the Central Terminal and the Hub in the North Terminal and 
he would go along with staff's recommendation to try it in the South 
Terminal. 

Commissioner Goosby said that women and minorities hold 30 percent of 
concession space in the Central Terminal but do only 10 percent of 
the business and asked if there was any way to correct those figures. 
The Commission had the option of percentage of revenue versus 
percentage of space. 

Mr. Turpen responded that Commissioner Goosby' s statement on the 
Central Terminal was correct but the North Terminal has had better 
success. He said that due to the nature of the space and layout of 
the South Terminal staff would like to try to establish some of the 
minority concessionaires in independent space, giving them the 
opportunity to operate independently instead of operating as part of 
a store complex. 



Minutes, Special Meeting, February 19, 1985, Page 6 



Commissioner Bernstein asked why we are tampering with the principal 
concessionaire concept if it has been so successful. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the concept is successful, but some areas, 
especially in percentage of revenue contribution versus percentage of 
space, could be improved upon and that is what staff is attempting to 
do. One of the initial thrusts of the principal concessionaire 
concept was to try and open up some minority and small business 
opportunities as well as ensure uniformity in quality and maximize 
Airport revenues. He said that the principal concessionaire 
satisfied those goals. He felt that in view of the Central Terminal 
experience staff would like to try a new approach in the South 
Terminal which might solve the problem of percentage of revenue 
versus the percentage of space. He said he did not know whether the 
problem is a function of product or whether it is a function of the 
way it was set up but he hoped the new approach will be more 
successful. 

Mr. Turpen said he will come back to the Commission with comments 
made at the pre-bid conference as well as staff's reactions to those 
comments. 

Mr. Turpen added that aside from the pre-bid conference the 
resolution also authorizes the assignment of the existing Soaps and 
Lotions Cart lease. 



5. Increase in Employee Parking Fees 

No. 85-0040 Resolution authorizing increases in 

employee parking fees in Lot D and the 
garage. 



6. Rebidding of the Parking Revenue Control Equipment 

No. 85-0041 Resolution approving the contract 

specifications and authorizing a 
pre-bid conference on the installation 
of a fully automatic on-line parking 
revenue control system. 

Mr. Turpen said that staff is recommending a two-phase approach and 
they believe they can modify the agreement and move forward fairly 
quickly. 

Mr. Turpen asked Sheldon Fein, Landside Operations, to brief the 
Commission. 

Mr. Fein said that they have held several meetings with bonding 
companies and received a letter this morning from the Fidelity 
Deposit Company of Maryland. Mr. Fein quoted from that letter: "In 
order to satisfy its obligation under the performance bond, Fidelity 
Deposit Company stands ready to reimburse the City and County of San 
Francisco up to the bond penalty of $1.2-million for reasonable and 
necessary costs incurred in completing Autoscan's contract upon 
exhaustion of contract funds." 

Mr. Fein said that in addition to the letter they indicated that they 
will work closely with their counsel to expedite the beginning of or 



Minutes, Special Meeting, February 19, 1985, Page 7 



obtain a new contract. Any additonal costs incurred will be covered 
by the bonding company. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if the company has tried to litigate. 

Mr. Fein responded not as of this date. 

Mr. Turpen felt it was inportant to move forward as soon as possible 
especially in view of the rebidding of the contract. 

Commissioner Bernstein felt staff should be able to learn something 
from the types of controls in place in the Union Square Garage and 
others. 

Mr. Fein responded that the type of equipment those facilities have 
is semi-automated. He said that the ticket is processed a little 
faster but they do not have overnight parking. The system they have 
is good for short-term but they do not have the problems that we have 
with revenue control when cars park in the facility for several weeks 
or a month. He said that their systems are also much slower in 
processing then an on-line system. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if it would be possible for the City to 
adopt one type of control for all garages. 

Mr. Fein said that the Airport has some 17,000 transactions per day 
so the processing time is very critical to the number of cashiers we 
have. The Airport has about 160 employees in the garage and it 
currently takes 22-23 seconds to process a card versus the 15 seconds 
it will take with the new system. The other garages may only have 
two cashiers on at any one time and will not save that much by 
processing the cards faster. 

Mr. Turpen said that one day over the Christmas holiday the garage 
processed over 27,000 cards. 

Mr. Fein added that this system will give us automatic counts. 



The following item was put over. 

Lease Modifications - Skyline Candy 

Resolution approving modification of 
lease for SKyline Candy and Gifts, Inc. 

Mr. Turpen said that this resolution would extend the lease of 
Skyline Candy and Gifts in the Central Terminal through 1991. The 
extension would be in exchange for relinquishing their exclusive 
rights in the South Terminal so that the Airport could pursue a 
principal concessionaire concept. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that there was an initial 10-year lease 
with two, five-year options, both of which have been exercised. He 
said that the lease is being extended without competitive bid because 
there is a claim against the Airport. He said he was not certain 
that this was the proper way to handle the situation. Commissioner 
Fleishell felt this could result in serious problems. He asked that 
the item be put over and that Mr. Agnost, the City Attorney, give it 
his personal attention. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked about Skyline's performance. 



Minutes, Special Meeting, February 19, 1985, Page 8 



Commissioner Fleishell responded that he heard it is excellent and is 

one of the Airport's finer tenants. He said that if this is to be 

done, and apparently it should, then it should be done under a permit 
system. 

Mr. Turpen said the item will be put over and the legal and 
performance questions will be addressed. 



The following items were unanimously adopted. 

8. Approval of Budget for Professional Services Contract, 
O'Brien-Kreitzberg & Associates, Inc. 
Contract Amendment No. 6 - $810,000.00 



No. 85-0042 



Resolution approving budget of 
$810,000 for 12-month period 
commencing March 15, 1985, for 
professional services contract between 
City and O'Brien-Kreitzberg & 
Associates, Inc., Consultant, to 
continue to provide scheduling, cost 
control, inspection, and monitoring 
services, and to provide personnel and 
equipment resources in the management 
of the Airport's Terminal Construction 
Program. 



9. 



Contract 1414AB, Boarding Area B, Type II Contract Modification for 
Interim Tenant Work - $342,208 



No. 85-0043 



Contract modification to provide 
temporary cooling tower for tenant 
areas, installation of interim 
communication cable raceways for 
airlines, relocation of existing TWA 
fuel pit and underground piping. 



Commissioner Tsougarakis asked how much was left in contingency funds. 

Mr. Jason Yuen, Administrator, Bureau of Planning and Construction, 
responded that this contract is roughly $200-million and typically 
7-1/2 percent of the total construction contract cost is set aside. 



10. 



Rejection of Bids and Authorization to Rebid 

Contract No. 1521R, Garage Signing - Electronic Display Units 



No. 85-0044 



Resolution rejecting all bids for 
Contract No. 1521R and authorizing the 
Director of Airports to readvertise 
and call for bids when ready. 



Commissioner Tsougarakis asked how the $110,000 was determined. 

Mr. Yuen responded that Airport engineers do an estimate to try to 
determine the costs. In addition, staff uses labor rate books and 
estimates from contractors. He said that this estimate was done some 
time ago because of the Democratic Convention. 



Minutes, Special Meeting, February 19, 1985, Page 9 



Commissioner Tsougarakis asked if there were any consequences in 
rejecting the bid. 

Mr. Turpen responded that these were simply remote control signs to 
be installed in the garage directing autos to cashiers. 



11. Award of Airport Contract No. 823 
Field Lighting Building No. 2 

No. 84-0045 Resolution awarding Contract No. 823 

to Stacy and Witbeck, Inc., and West 
Bay Contractors-Engineers, Inc., a 
joint venture in the amount of 
$1,754,400. 



Five bids were received on January 10, 
1985, ranging from $1,754,400 to 
$1,854,000. 



12. Award of Contract to Pacific Bell for Relocation of Telephone Cables 
within the South Terminal Complex - $50,000 

No. 85-0046 Resolution awarding contract for cable 

relocation which is a part of the 
renovation work for the South Terminal 
Complex . 



13. 5267 Assistant Airport Noise Abatement Officer 

No. 85-0047 Resolution requesting the Mayor and 

Board of Supervisors to grant a 
supplemental appropriation to fund the 
salary schedule assigned to a new 
classification, Class 5267 Assistant 
Airport Noise Abatement Officer. 

Budgeted at ($1506BW-$1506BW, ) the 
salary schedule will be set at 
($1401BW-$1698BW.) The cost increase 
of $6,234.00 will be covered by 
transferring funds within the 
Airport's Noise Monitoring 
Programmatic Budget. 

Mr. Turpen stated that the Commission approved this some time ago and 
a supplemental appropriation is now needed in order to get this 
position filled. 

Mr. Turpen explained he wanted to hire an assistant noise abatement 
officer so that in the event our current noise abatement officer left 
the assistant could fill the position and then the assistant's 
position could be eliminated. 

Commissioner Fleishell added that it is important to the people in 
communities surrounding the Airport to have such a position. 



Minutes, Special Meeting, February 19, 1985, Page 10 



H. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

The following items were unanimously adopted. 

14. Amendment of Rules of Order 

No. 85-0048 Resolution amending Rule 7 of Airports 

Commission's Rules of Order to change 
time of regular meetings from 
2:00 P.M. to 9:00 A.M. 

Mr. Turpen said that the new meeting time will become effective on 
March 5,. 1985. 



15. Authorization to Transfer $100,000 to the Art Commission for Award of 
Contract to Charles Ross for the Skylight Prism Sculpture at Boarding 
Area B, South Terminal Complex 

No. 85-0049 



16. Rental Credit for Western Air Lines, Inc. 

No. 85-0050 Resolution approving rental credit for 

Western Air Lines, Inc. for Airport 
engineering and design work performed 
by Western's contractors for apron 
improvements. 



17. Design Review Approval - North Terminal Shoeshine Stands 

No. 85-0051 Resolution approving the schematic 

design of the North Terminal Shoeshine 
Stands. 



18. Design Review Approval - Avis Rental Return Lobby Expansion 

No. 85-0052 Resolution approving the schematic 

design of the lobby expansion of the 
Avis rental return building. 



19. Contracts 1410ABCD, 1410EF, and 1414AB, 
South Terminal Modernization Projects, 

Type 11 Contract Modification for Improvements to Fire Alarm System - 
$97,079.00 

No. 85-0053 Contract modification for adding 16 

local fire alarm panels to provide 
monitoring and resetting 
capabilities. This upgrade will speed 
the firefighters' response and enhance 
the reliability and maintainability of 
the system. 



Minutes, Special Meeting, February 19, 1985, Page 11 



20. Modification of Lease and Use Agreement - Continental Airlines, Inc. 

No. 85-0054 Resolution modifying Continental 

Airlines, Inc. Lease and Use Agreement 
#82-0316 between Airport and 
Continental and further settling 
pending bankruptcy claims. 



21. Modification of Lease & Use Agreement for Republic Airlines West, Inc. 

No. 85-0055 Resolution modifying Republic Airlines 

West, Inc. Lease and Use Agreement 
#82-0123 between Airport and Republic. 



22. Modification of Lease and Use Agreement - Pacific Southwest Airlines 

No. 85-0056 Resolution modifying Pacific Southwest 

Airlines Lease and Use Agreement 
#82-0120 between Airport and Pacific 
Southwest Airlines. 



23. Report on the SCR-74 Study 



Report summarizing the status of the 
SCR-74 study that is looking into 
long-range transit improvements on the 
Peninsula being conducted by the 
Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 



24. Weather Service Installation of Weather Sensing Instruments at San 
Francisco International Airport 

No. 85-0057 Resolution approving plans of the 

Federal Weather Service to install 
instruments on Airport airfield under 
a federal demonstration project. 
T-2947 - $250,000. 



25. Request for Approval of Travel/Training for Airports Commission 
Representat i ves 

No. 85-0058 

* * A 

I . CORRESPONDENCE : 

There was no discussion by the Commission. 

* * * 



Minutes, Special Meeting, February 19, 1985, Page 12 



J. TRAILING CALENDAR: 

There was no discussion of trailing calendar items. 



The following item was re-introduced. 

15. Authorization to Transfer $100,000 to the Art Commission for Award of 
Contract to Charles Ross for the Skylight Prism Sculpture at Boarding 
Area B, South Terminal Complex 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if this item was introduced once before. 

Mr. Yuen responded that the Commission approved the transfer back in 
April, 1984, but the artist refused to sign the contract because he 
did not want to do the installation due to the construction that was 
going on at that time. The Commission then rescinded their approval. 
The artist ultimately signed the contract and that is why it is back 
before the Commission for approval. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked how they arrived at the $100,000. 

Ms. Regina Almaguer, Art Commission representative, responded that 
the pricing is based on equivalent types of art and the going rate in 
the market. She said that the $100,000 also includes installation 
and insurance. 



K. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 9:55 A.M. to go into closed session. 



n 



/ 



> ■/ 

Jean Caramatti 
/ /Commission Secretary 



Minutes, Special Meeting, February 19, 1985, Page 13 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




MINUTES 



MARCH 5, 


1985 




and 






MARCH 7, 


1985 





DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

WILLIAM K. COBLENTZ 

Vice-President 

DR. Z.L. GOOSBY 

J. EDWARD FLEISHELL 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 

LOUIS A.TURPEN 

Director of Airports 

San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

March 5, 1985 

and 
March 7, 1985 



Calendar 


Agenda 


Section 


Item 


A. 




B. 




C. 





Title 



CALL TO ORDER: 



ROLL CALL: 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 



Resolution 
Number 



Page 

3 
3 



Special Meetings of Feb- 
ruary 5 and February 11, 
1985 



85-0060 
85-0061 



D. 



DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 



E. 

F. 



Valet Parking - January 
to December, 1984 

ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 



Airport Motor Coach Service 
Agreement - Authorization 
to Bid 



Authorization to Receive 
Bids for the Lease of 
Sunglasses Retail Operation 



85-0062 



Modification to Professional 
Services Contract: Cerand & 
Company 

Modification to Professional 
Services Agreement with 
Orrick, Herrington and 
Sutcliffe 



85-0063 



85-0064 



Award of Contract No. 1474R 
Demolition of Old Shuttle Bus 
Maintenance Building and Site 
Improvements 



85-0065 



Shearwater Development 
Project 



85-0066 



Minutes, March 5 & 7, 1985, Page 1 



Calendar 
Section 



Agenda 
Item 



Title 



Resolution 
Number 



Page 



G. 



I . 
J. 
K. 



8. Staff Commendation for 
Aviation Safety Institute 
Award 

CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

9. Status Report on the 

San Francisco Garter Snake 
Study 

10. Tenant Improvement: 
Western Airlines Flight 
Information Display (T-2951) 

11. Tenant Improvement: 
Western Airlines Inbound 
Baggage System (T2941) 

12. Tenant Improvement: 

Air Cal Facilities Reno- 
vation, $45,000 - No Rental 
Credit (T-2939) 

13. Airport Contract No. 1336 - 
Contract Modification Emer- 
gency Airfield Pavement 
Repairs FY 1983-84 

CORRESPONDENCE: 

TRAILING CALENDAR: 

CLOSED SESSION: 

ADJOURNMENT: 



85-0067 



85-0068 



85-0069 



85-0070 



85-0071 



Minutes, March 5 & 7, 1985, Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

March 5, 1985 



A. CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:00 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



B. ROLL CALL: 

Present ; 



Commissioners Morris Bernstein, 
William K. Coblentz, 
Z. L. Goosby, 
Edward Fleishell, 
Athena Tsougarakis 

Commissioner Fleishell was excused 
from participating in the discussion 
of Item 2 and left the meeting when 
that item was called. 

Commissioner Goosby left the meeting 
at 11:10 A.M. 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The minutes of the special meetings of February 5 and February 11, 1985 
were adopted by order of the Commission President. 

No. 85-0060 
No. 85-0061 



A court reporter's transcript covering the morning and evening sessions of 
the March 5 meeting and the reconvened meeting of March 7, 1985 is on file 
in the Commission Secretary's office. 



Minutes, March 5, 1985, Page 3 



D. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

1. Valet Parking - January to December, 1984 



Report covering the calendar year 1984 
on Valet Parking service as requested 
by Commission. 



E. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

There were no items initiated by Commissioners. 



F. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

The following item was discussed at the morning and evening sessions of 
March 5, 1985. The evening session recessed at 7:30 P.M. and reconvened 
at 8:00 A.M. on March 7, 1985. Action on this item was put over to the 
meeting of March 19, 1985. 

2. Airport Motor Coach Service Agreement - Authorization to Bid 

Resolution approving contract 
documents for Airport Motor Coach 
Service Agreement and authorization to 
bid. 



The following item was unanimously adopted as amended. 

3. Authorization to Receive Bids for the Lease of Sunglasses Retail 
Operation 

No. 85-0062 Resolution approving leasehold 

specifications and authorizing 
Director to receive bids for the lease 
of Sunglasses Retail Operation in the 
North Terminal. 



The following items were unanimously adopted. 

4. Modification to Professional Services Contract: Cerand and Company 

No. 85-0063 Resolution to appropriate new funding 

to Cerand and company for professional 
services to be rendered during rebid 
of Computerized Parking Control System 
contract. 



Minutes, March 5 & 7, 1985, Page 4 



5. Modification to Professional Services Agreement with Orrick, 
Herrington and Sutcliffe 

No. 85-0064 Resolution authorizing a modification 

to the agreement with Orrick, 
Herrington and Sutcliffe to provide 
for interim legal advice 



6. Award of Contract No. 1474R 

Demolition of Old Shuttle Bus Maintenance Building and Site 
Improvements 

No. 85-0065 Resolution awarding Contract No. 1474R 

to Anderson Constructors, Inc., in the 
amount of $248,000, base bid only. 

Two bids were received on January 11, 
1985 ranging from $248,000 to $250,950. 



7. Shearwater Development Project 

No. 85-0066 Resolution authorizing the Director of 

Airports to take necessary action to 
oppose the construction of 350 
residential units in the area under 
the flight path of the shoreline 
departure. 



Staff Commendation for Aviation Safety Institute Award 

No. 85-0067 Resolution commending Airport staff 

for their efforts in receiving the 
Aviation Safety Institute Award in 
Perpetuity. 



G. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 
9. Status Report on the San Francisco Garter Snake 



Report covering field activities for 
the July 1 through October 30, 1984 
period - the San Francisco Garter 
Snake study. Also, an up-date is 
given on the study extension granted 
by the Airports Commission. 



Minutes, March 5, 1985, Page 5 



The following items were unanimously adopted. 

10. Tenant Improvement: 

Western Airlines Flight Information Display 
T-2951 

No. 85-0068 Installation of a new flight 

information display system in the 
South Terminal by Western Airlines, 
$20,000. No Cost to Airport. 



11. Tenant Improvement: 

Western Airlines Inbound Baggage System 
T-2941 

No. 85-0069 Installation of a new inbound baggage 

conveyor system in the South Terminal 
by Western Airlines, $100,000. No 
cost to the Airport. 



12. Tenant Improvement: 

Air Cal Facilities Renovation 
$45,000 - No Rental Credit - T-2939 

No. 85-0070 



13. Airport Contract No. 1336 - Contract Modification 
Emergency Airfield Pavement Repairs - FY 1983-84 

No. 85-0071 Resolution approving a modification of 

contract extending the completion date 

from March 31, 1985 to September 30, 

1985, at no additional cost to the 
City. 



H. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission. 



I. TRAILING CALENDAR: 

There was no discussion of trailing calendar items. 



Minutes, March 5, 1985, Page 6 



J. CLOSED SESSION: 

There was no closed session at the March 5, 1985 morning or evening 
session. 



* # * 



K. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 

The March 5, 1985 meeting recessed at 11:20 A.M. and reconvened at 5:00 
P.M. that evening. That session recessed at 7:20 P.M. and reconvened at 
8:00 A.M. on March 7, 1985. There being no further calendared business 
before the Commission the March 7 meeting adjourned at 9:15 A.M. to go 
into closed session. 



n 



/ M(L - ^>c tui^. 



Jepn Caramatti 

nmission Secretary 



Minutes, March 5 & 7, 1985, Page 7 



:•" 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




MINUTES 



MARCH 19, 1985 



DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

WILLIAM K. COBLENTZ 

Vice-President 

DR. Z.L. GOOSBY 

J. EDWARD FLEISHELL 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 

LOUIS A.TURPEN 

Director of Airports 

San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 






Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

March 19, 1985 



Calendar 


Agenda 




Section 


Item 


Title 


A. 




CALL TO ORDER: 


B. 




ROLL CALL: 


C. 




ADOPTION OF MINUTES 



Resolution 
Number 



5. 



Special Meeting of 

February 19, 1985 85-0074 

ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 

SPECIAL ITEM: 

Airport Motor Coach 
Service Agreement - 
Authorization to Bid 85-0092 

DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

Free Baggage Carts in 
Customs: Status Report 

Update on the Proposed 
Charter Amendment to Allow 
the Airport to Negotiate 
the Sale of Securities 

ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS : 

ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

Award of Contract 1410A-1, 

South Terminal Complex Carpet 85-0075 

Award of Contract No. 1380 

Replacement of PCB 

Transformers 85-0076 

Lease Modification - 

Skyline Candy 85-0077 

Supplemental Appropriation 

in the Amount of $9,567,881 

to Fund Approved Capital 

Projects 85-0078 



Page 

3 
3 



6-15 

16-17 

17 
20-21 

4-6 

15 
16 

17 



Minutes, March 19, 1985, Page 1 



Calendar Agenda Resolution 

Section Item Title Number Page 

8. Month- to-Month Hold Over 85-0079 
of North Terminal Leases 85-0080 

85-0081 

85-0082 18 

9. Rental Credit to Host 

International, Inc. 18 

10. Contract with The Parry 

Company - $10,000 85-0083 19 

I. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

11. Retirement Resolution - 

Raymond Heil 85-0084 19 

12. Rental Credit - Duty Free 

Shoppers 85-0085 19 

13. Rejection of Bids and 
Authorization to Rebid 
Contract No. 1200B-18 
Rehabilitation of Elevators - 

International Terminal 85-0086 19 

14. Award of Airport Contract 
No. 1250G - Pavement Groov- 
ing, R/W 19L, North End 

15. Resolution Approving Assign- 
ment of Lease, Air California 

16. Request for Approval of 
Travel/Training for Airports 
Commission Representatives 

J . CORRESPONDENCE : 

K. TRAILING CALENDAR: 

L. CLOSED SESSION: 

M. ADJOURNMENT: 



85-0087 


20 


85-0088 


20 


85-0089 


20 




21 




22 




3 




22 



Minutes, March 19, 1985, Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

March 19, 1985 



A. CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:00 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



B. ROLL CALL: 

Present : 



Commissioners Morris Bernstein, 

William K. Coblentz, 

Z. L. Gcosby, 

J. Edward Fleishell, 

Athena Tsougarakis 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The Minutes of the special meeting of February 19, 1985 were adopted by 
order of the Commission President. 

No. 85-0074 



D. ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 



In accordance with Section 54957.1 of 
the Brown Act, Jean Caramatti, 
Commission Secretary, announced 
unanimous adoption of Resolution Nos. 
85-0072 and 85-0073 regarding the 
settlement of litigated claims at the 
Closed Session of March 7, 1985. 



L. CLOSED SESSION: 

The meeting adjourned to go into closed session at 9:05 a.m. and 
reconvened at 9:25 a.m. 



Minutes, March 19, 1985, Page 3 



H. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

The following item was called out of order and unanimously adopted. 

4. Award of Contract 1410A-1, 
South Terminal Complex Carpet 

No. 85-0075 Resolution awarding Contract 141QA-1, 

South Terminal Complex Carpet to 
Monroe Schneider Associates for 
furnishing and installing Mohawk 
carpeting at the base bid price of 
$1,213,892, plus Alternates 1.1, 1.2, 
and 2 at £375,945, for a total of 
$1,589,837. 

Three contractors submitted ten bids 
on five approved carpets on February 
17, 1985. Bid tabulations are 
available from the Bureau of Planning 
& Construction. 

Mr. Bob Plann of American Contract said he received the test results 
of the carpets and found some flaws in the test data. 

Mr. Plann said that there was a total of 800 possible points that 
could be awarded to a carpet and American Contract was awarded 600 
points on hard, objective raw data. That data came from Williams & 
Williams, the Airport's testing company. Two-hundred points were for 
esthetic evaluation. He said the specifications for the carpet being 
tested called for a 15 pound tuft bind. In reviewing the data, Mr. 
Williams was apparently told by Airport staff to test on a 20 pound 
tuft bind. Tuft bind is strength needed to pull out a tufted 
carpet. He said the specifications clearly read 15 pounds so both 
Lees and Karastan were evaluated improperly; they should have been 
given full consideration of points. Mr. Plann said that staff is 
therefore recommending that out of five carpets tested on hard, 
objective raw data the Airport buy the fourth performing carpet. He 
said that the issue, when you look at the point total, is the 
esthetic evaluation of the carpet. Mr. Plann said that he was told 
that the evaluation was done by Howard Friedman. The samples 
produced by the various manufacturers were done on the per se need of 
five various architectural firms, also hired by the Airport. He 
complained that no one ever said to the manufacturers that this is 
what we will consider to be a 200 point carpet. He said that every 
carpet mill can alter the texture, appearance and color of a carpet. 
When the carpets were judged on esthetics Lees was given 100 points 
out of a possible 200, and Mohawk was given 180 points. He said that 
staff is recommending a carpet that he does not think is going to 
perform on the floor. 

Mr. Plann, reading from Mr. Williams report said that the weak 
characteristic in the Mohawk carpet is pile crush. Mr. Plann said 
that he did not consider that a weak characteristic, but a major flaw 
of the carpet. He said that a carpet that crushes is what makes it 
look old and used. He said that Mr. Friedman liked the texture, so 
he rated the carpet very high on texture. Mr. Plann said that U.S. 
Testing Laboratories considered Mohawk marginal in color fastness. 
He felt that although esthetics is an issue it is not a prime issue 
and the hard raw data should be one of the major factors in selecting 
a carpet. 



Minutes, March 19, 1985, Page 4 



Mr. Plann, reading from a letter written by Jason Yuen in response to 
their protest, said the Airports decision was based on obtaining the 
best value considering the cost, esthetics, ease of maintenance and 
other performance standards. Mr. Plann felt that "other performance 
standards" was not the last issue but the first issue. He felt that 
the data should be re-evaluated. As the low bidder, he is prepared 
to put a $2 million bond on the carpet, as requested by the City, to 
guarantee its performance. Lees is prepared to give an additional $2 
million to the City. DuPont is prepared to give it a 10-year wear 
guarantee. 

Mr. Plann concluded by saying that he felt that Mohawk would be a bad 
business decision and hoped the Commission would give his comments 
some consideration. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked Ms. Jan Stephens of Karastan Rug Mills 
to speak. 

Ms. Stephens said that in all of the amendments they received from 
the Airports Commission there was never any change to a 20 pound tuft 
bind, and they were graded down because of this. Karastan exceeded 
the minimum of 15 pounds and felt they should receive full points on 
that. 

Ms. Stephens said she has personally been involved with the 
architects that the committee has worked with in the last two years 
and Karastan has personally made approximately $12,000 worth of 
samples and developed the design and the texture that was decided 
upon. In October of 1983 Lee, Karastan and Bigelow were asked to 
come up with a type of carpet that at least two of the manufacturers 
could make. They all agreed upon this type of a texture, eliminating 
a proprietary specification. She said that Mohawk came in at the 
very end when samples were being submitted for final testing with a 
carpet that they said was a woven construction but was, in fact, a 
knitted construction. 

Ms. Stephens said they were told by the Master Architect's office 
that esthetics and testing would be a primary consideration and 
pricing would be the last consideration. She said that Karastan 
worked on those priorities and if they had been told at the outset 
that pricing would be an issue they might have changed their approach 
in how they priced the carpet and handled it. She said that Karastan 
had the best performance in the esthetics portion of the testing. 
Ms. Stephens felt that Karastan would wear well and hopefully 
eliminate the type of problems found in the Central Terminal. 

Mr. Yuen, responding to Ms. Stephens' comments, said that 15 pounds 
is a minimum tuft bind requirement that manufacturers were asked to 
come up with. It was not changed from 15 to 20. The test results 
indicated that when 20 was reached the maximum points were given; 
additional points were not given for anything above 20. Several of 
the carpets did not meet 20 and were accepted. Mr. Yuen added that 
the specifications given to the manufacturer are simply minimum 
guidelines. 

Mr. Yuen corrected some of the points made by Mr. Plann. Mr. Plann 
said that of the possible 800 points 200 points were for esthetics. 
Mr. Yuen said that there was a possible 1000 points and 20 percent or 
200 points were for esthetics. He pointed out that even if the tuft 
bind scoring and the esthetics scoring were tossed out, Monroe 
Schneider with the Mohawk carpet would still be the best value for 
the Airport. 



Minutes, March 19, 1985, Page 5 



Mr. Yuen said that from the very beginning the specifications and the 
invitations to bid mentioned in several places that the Airport was 
not interested in the least expensive carpet but the best value for 
the Airport considering the cost, the wearability, the ease of 
maintenance, and other performance standards. Bidders knew all along 
that we were not going to award to the low bidder. He also reminded 
the Commission that in 1978 a contract was awarded to American 
Contract for Lees carpet and they were second- low bidder. Monroe 
Schneider with Bigelow was the low bidder that time and there was no 
protest made then. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if guidelines for esthetics were provided 
by staff. 

Mr. Yuen responded that staff gave very general guidelines because 
each manufacturer has different mills and they can not produce 
exactly the same carpet. He said he had samples of the carpets with 
him. Mr. Yuen said the esthetics were judged by Howard Friedman, the 
Airport maintenance staff, the architects and other Airport staff 
members. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if Howard Friedman concurred with the 
findings. 

Mr. Yuen responded that he did. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked if staff was satisfied with the selected 
carpet. 

Mr. Yuen assured Commissioner Fleishell that the staff was satisfied 
with the selected carpet. He added that this carpet does crush a 
little bit more than Lees carpet but there are other factors such as 
wearability and cleanability that are very important. He said that 
Mr. Plann counted only the weak factors. Mr Yuen said that 
shrinkability was a weak factor of Lees carpet. He said that the 
best carpet as far as the crushability factor costs $400,000 more. 
Staff feels that it is not worth 8400,000 to have a little bit less 
crush in the carpet. 

Commissioner Goosby asked Mr. Yuen to leave the carpet samples out so 
that they could be inspected after the meeting. 



E. SPECIAL ITEM: 

The following is a verbatim transcript taken from the tape of the March 
19, 1985 Airports Commission meeting. This item was unanimously adopted 
as amended. Commissioner Fleishell abstained from voting on this item in 
accordance with a Commission action at the March 5, 1985 meeting. 

The following bus company representatives were present for this item: 

Mr. Stephan Leonoudakis, SPO Airporter 

Mr. A. Werbe, Gray Line 

Mr. T. Ruiz, Lorries 

A representative of Greyhound 

Mr. Aric Scharabi 



Minutes, March 19, 1985, Page 6 



1. Airport Motor Coach Service Agreement - Authorization to Bid 

No. 85-0092 Resolution approving contract 

documents for Airport Motor Coach 
Service Agreement and authorization to 
bid. 

Mr. Turpen, Director of Airports: The public testimony is closed on 
this matter. 

Commissioner Coblentz: Yes. Mr. Turpen has some answers to 
statements that had been made at the last meeting. 

Mr. Turpen: I do Commissioner. I would like the opportunity to 
briefly respond to what I feel are some of the key points, after 
which staff and I will be prepared to respond to any questions the 
Commission has. 

I would like to start off by saying that these are sound 
specifications. They recognize and they equitably balance the 
Airports Commission's responsibilities to our passengers, perspective 
bidders, this City, its legal requirements and constraints. I think 
the testimony of the past would have the Commission believe that we 
have abandoned or chosen to ignore our responsibilities in this 
matter and that is simply not true. We labored over how to 
effectively and fairly discharge those responsibilities. We spent 
literally thousands of man hours putting this document together since 
we first began this long process several years ago. 

I would like to point out what our thinking has been and to respond 
to five major points which were repeatedly emphasized. There were 
really five major points. First, the cents per deplaned passenger 
concept; second the number of busses; third was the prevailing wage; 
fourth was an exclusive purchasing preferential and the last was the 
question of the downtown terminal. I would like to take those in 
order. 

The cents per deplaned passenger concept was designed to satisfy two 
objectives: to promote ridership and to promote auditing 
simplicity. In the staff philosophy Airporter is to be an 
inexpensive quality Airport to fixed-stop transportation 
alternative. It is not designed to be a custom transportation 
alternative. Our objective was to create a rent structure which 
offers an incentive to attract passengers and we believe the 
cents-per-deplaned passenger formula accomplishes that. Once a 
successful bidder reaches that minimum as defined by his bid then 
every other passenger attracted, 100 percent of those revenues flow 
to the successful operator, the operator having overcome what 
essentially are subcosts with respect to his bid. The Airporter is 
really the backbone of our mass transit concept; it is a major mass 
transit mover and anyone serving the Airport through the new Motor 
Coach Service Agreement would be a backbone element and should move a 
considerable number of passengers. We would like to think that it 
targets a market above certain very low cost alternatives which make 
frequent stops and some of the higher cost alternatives such as 
limousines and cabs. And so we start to offer to our passengers a 
full spectrum of transportation alternatives predicated more on price 
than on competing at a single price level. 

As far as auditing simplicity goes, there have been some comments 
about the fact that we can't verify or testify to the accuracy of 
airline projection. There is some confusion here. By the 15th of 
each month we receive from the airlines an actual count of the number 



Minutes, March 19, 1985, Page 7 



of persons they carried into San Francisco. Those numbers can be 
used to effectively determine what rental is required and it is done 
independently of going to the operator and asking the operator to 
provide that information. We think that the percent of gross concept 
is less of an incentive to compete, less of an incentive to attract 
passengers because what you are talking about is 16.25 percent of 
whoever you carry. I have a few charts and I would just like to 
illustrate some of the points I am trying to make with this 
cents-per-deplaned passenger. 

If we take a look at our current operation, the red line demonstrates 
the number of passengers over time, the green line demonstrates the 
fare over time and this lighter green line represents the fare as 
adjusted for inflation since the original time. We are talking about 
fares of approximately $1.60 to $1.70 in 1978 going to $6.00 with a 
pending rate increase before the PUC of £7.00. At the same time we 
are talking about a 500,000 person or 25 percent drop in ridership. 
At least 16 percent of that drop occurred when it went from $4.00 to 
$6.00. Is that right, Skip? That lends some credence to my argument 
of targeting a specific fare and targeting a certain section of the 
market. We see the $2.79 figure as representative of this fare in 
1985, adjusted for the inflationary factor. 

What we see here, and one of our arguments is that as the price has 
gone up it has driven people away. For a family of three traveling 
from the Airport to downtown on the Airporter is currently $18.00 
with a potential to go to $21.00. Limousines, point to point share 
ride, is $21.00 for three people. Taxi, door to door share ride, is 
$21.00. Mr. Ruiz was in here and indicated it was $6.00 a person 
which is $18.00 for three people with the potential to go to $21.00. 
So we haven't got a range of services, but we are starting to 
customize services for a specific price and that, all of a sudden, 
leaves a very significant gap between where we were, which was $1.65 
and I think SamTrans charges $1.15 with many stops; it's a localized 
service. But between that $1.10 now and a significantly increased 
price we have some very serious concerns and we think that if we 
compete or induce the successful bidder to compete, to advertise, to 
go after that business, I think we will be serving the passengers 
well and the Airport well. 

In that regard I would like you to take a look at something which I 
think is extremely graphic. Our current operator runs approximately, 
by his testimony, in excess of 160 busses a day; that is almost 
2.8-million seats a year. Last year our operator carried 784,000 
people from the Airport which essentially meant a 27 percent load 
factor on those busses. So we had 2 million empty seats leave the 
Airport last year, which is the equivilent of 40,000 empty busses. 
Those are seats which can be filled. 

We think that volume is an important aspect of this. Certainly the 
airlines can't survive on a 27 percent load factor. There are some 
airlines, quite frankly, that are on the brink with a 55-60' percent 
load factor. We start to see that there is tremendous potential 
here, an unused resource which could be utilized and, if it did, it 
could start to help the Airport in its mass transit objectives as 
well as provide what we consider to be a reasonably priced quality 
service. We've gotten embroiled in this "first class service" 
concept but what we are really talking about is a quality service. A 
good, solid quality service at a reasonable price to our passengers. 

In summary on that item, we think that if an operator can attract a 
market in excess of a specific number, that number being defined by 
the minimum cents-per-deplaned passenger bid, that we can start to 
induce the type of aggressive marketing necessary to fill those 
2-million empty seats. 



Minutes, March 19, 1985, Page 8 



On the number of busses, once again you know people would have the 
Airports Commission believe that we have 12 mini-vans and that is 
what we are going to accept. That is simply not true. We have 
indicated that 12 busses is the minimum number of busses which will 
allow you to bid on this contract. If we go to fifteen busses we are 
increasing the capital cost of getting into this business by 25 
percent. If we go to 24 busses we are increasing the capital cost by 
$2.5 million; if you require 160 trips, we are increasing the 
operating cost by $2 million a year and that is a significant minimum 
level. There is nothing in our specifications which prohibits any 
successful operator from putting on 20, 25, 15, 18, any number of 
busses necessary to serve the market and to attract rider ship. I 
happen to know, at least casually, all of the people involved in this 
process. I know they are motivated to be successful in business. I 
know that they have been successful in business, and I have yet to 
meet Mr. Minimum Bus Company, the person who is just out there to 
break even, or to lose money. So, I have some faith in private 
enterprise and the fact that if there is a market there and if there 
are people waiting for your services, that you will take advantage of 
those opportunities. 

The Airport currently has 40,000 vehicles a day enter the Airport 
roadway system. That is a significant number and it relates back to 
my earlier concepts of the Airport Motor Coach Service Agreement 
providing the backbone of mass transit service at the Airport. We 
think that the number of busses at 12 is appropriate. If the 
Commission has any questions after I conclude my brief remarks, 
Sheldon (Fein) can graphically review that with you. But, 12 busses 
as a minimum is entirely appropriate to serve a single fixed point in 
the City. We currently have four operators serving multiple-points 
in the City, as a matter of fact, every hotel, and many will come to 
your home and go to the Airport. So, there are alternate services. 
This agreement, like its predecessor, talks to only one fixed point. 

We got any awful lot of testimony about baggage handlers. 
Twenty-five percent of our current operator's passengers don't have 

the ( switch to side 2 of tape) . . . .The driver' s don' t help 

because they have baggage handlers, so the other two busloads of 
people are waiting for the baggage handlers. So, when we talk about 
first class service we can paint that picture to our own benefit, and 
most certainly I can understand and appreciate why that's done. On 
the other hand, I think it's important for the Commission to 
recognize that first class service isn't necessarily having a baggage 
handler in one location. First class service is not requiring, as 
these specifications state, not requiring the passenger to handle 
their own bags. And further, requiring the busses not linger for 
inordinate periods of time in front of the terminal building. 

Prevailing Wage. I am going to ask the City Attorney to comment on 
this one briefly. However, I would like to start by saying that on 
one hand the people are telling us that prevailing wage should be 
required for all operators, whether union or non-union, it doesn't 
make any difference. On the other hand, people are saying it does 
make a difference. We are being threatened by the Unions for 
litigation on prevailing wage which is really quite interesting 
because 21 airlines are suing us on the very same issue. These 
specifications recognize prevailing wage. Prevailing wage is 
defined, especially defined if, in fact, there is an existing 
labor-management or collective bargaining agreement. I would like 
the City Attorney to put that issue to rest once and for all. 

Don Garibaldi, Airports General Counsel: I doubt if I can succeed in 
doing that. I can explain it. 



Minutes, March 19, 1985, Page 9 



As required by the Prevailing Wage Ordinance it is incorporated into 
this Agreement. The Prevailing Wage Ordinance does provide that if 
there is a collective bargaining agreement that covers the employees 
who will perform the services under this Agreement that then, in 
effect, the collective bargaining agreement will govern the wages of 
those employees. There is no requirement in the Ordinance that there 
be a determination of what the applicable prevailing wage will be 
before the contract goes out to bid. The way the Ordinance is 
written, and I have to comment that the Ordinance was proposed by 
various Union organizations in the City, it's basically their 
Ordinance, it requires only that upon the filing of a complaint that 
an existing contractor is not paying the prevailing wage that then 
the Civil Service Commission must undertake a survey and make a 
formal determination of what the applicable prevailing wage is. It 
is a situation that comes into play after you have awarded the 
contract and someone comes in and complains that the Ordinance is not 
being complied with. 

Mr. Turpen: Just as an aside, I have before me a sheet of bus driver 
pay rates for San Francisco, California. There are 4 rates here 
which are being paid to drivers and these drivers are all represented 
by the same union. Those rates are $13.50 an hour, $10.05 an hour, 
$8.13 an hour and $7.65 an hour. The same union is representing all 
of these people. 

Unintelligible comment from the floor. 

Mr. Turpen: The fourth item is the question of exclusive versus 
preferential use of the facility. The current contract is an 
exclusive contract. The staff, for a number of reasons, initially 
recommended that this Agreement be preferential. By preferential we 
mean that we will provide exclusive areas within the terminal to have 
manned booths. We will provide preferential loading zones curbside, 
lower level at the terminal facility. But, we are not guaranteeing 
that we will protect this operator against competition. As the 
Commission is well aware we are currently in litigation over that 
very subject. It is impractical in today's environment with the PUC 
pursuing a more aggressive policy of deregulation continually to 
guarantee exclusivity which could be construed to require the Airport 
to prohibit competing routes from being established. We have no 
control over that. The PUC currently is providing permits for 
prearranged service from the Airport to a number of people. It is 
our feeling that by providing preferential zones, by providing 
exclusive locations whithin the terminal for this specific operator 
that no significant improvement in its operating can be gained by 
providing exclusivity and quite the contrary can cause some real 
problems for the Airport in terms of language in protecting that 
exclusivity. While it is true that the Airport can come out in a 
preferential and non-exclusive arrangement and bid a second Motor 
Coach Service Agreement, I think that there are two things that 
prevent that. The first, of course, is good business sense. There 
would be no reason to dilute or to weaken a successful operation by 
artificially inducing competition. Secondly, I just don't think that 
I am personally prepared to go through this again. I don't think I 
can handle a second bid of the Airport Motor Coach Service Agreement. 

The last matter is the question of the downtown terminal which has 
been much debated. As the Airports Commission indicated at its last 
meeting, the Commission was willing to append, for informational 
purposes only, any offer which the current holder of the downtown 
terminal would care to make to a successful bidder. There have been 
a number of comments and some exchange of information in the past two 



Minutes, March 19, 1985, Page 10 



weeks since our last meeting with respect to this issue. I can not, 
at this time, recommend to you the inclusion of the terminal based on 
the information I have. I think the Commissions' course of appending 
it is certainly one alternative the Commission has. It was always 
the desire of the Airports Commission, historically, to have a 
centralized, consistent location for passengers coming to San 
Francisco in the downtown area and most certainly the Commissions' 
language of the unammortized cost being passed through to the next 
successful bidder was clear. At this point I have not been able to 
determine what that is and therefore can not make a recommendation in 
that regard to the Commission today. 

Essentially those are the five areas. There is one last thing that I 
would like to close with. Very briefly, the chart illustrates what 
we are trying to accomplish. We are charged with providing the best 
possible service. We are charged with staying within a realm of 
being reasonable, prudent and staying within the zone of what the law 
requires. At the same time we have a public obligation to maximize 
the number of bidders. We could talk about ultra first class 
service. Ultra first class service to me is having baggage handlers 
sufficient to take a bag from every carousel on the Airport for every 
passenger on the Airport, run it out to the bus and run it from the 
bus to someplace else. You are not going to get any bidders if you 
have ultra, ultra first class service because it becomes impractical. 

You can go down to a zero service level on the extreme and park a bus 
downtown and have everybody get on who wants to go to the Airport and 
hold an election to see who drives it. We might have a lot of 
bidders for that but certainly you would consider that a zero service 
level. 

Someplace in between, consistent with what is practical, consistent 
with what the law requires and consistent with our responsibility to 
maximize the number of bidders we have to establish our 
specifications and we have established in this zone. We have 
maximized the service to satisfy the needs of our passengers. We 
have, at the same time, in our view, maximized the potential for 
competetive bidding and this, we think, will result in certain 
financial benefits for the City. And, we have stayed within an area 
that we feel is reasonable, prudent and certainly consistent with the 
applicable legal requirements of the City. That is what we have 
tried to do. We've tried to provide a balanced set of specifications 
for prospective bidders to bid on and the result being that our 
passengers are served properly. That has been our intent. I believe 
these specifications satisfy that intent and I recommend these 
specifications to you and ask that you allow us the opportunity to 
move forward. Thank you. 

Commissioner Goosby: I think the Director covered a number of the 
points. I think that the response of the Commission to the interest 
and participation of the involved and concerned people in the 
community, employers/employees and community people, I think is 
important. I want to congratulate the community as I hope that this 
occurs with all of our City acts that there is knowledge of what is 
going on and that they do participate. I think that it is important 
that you provide your Commissioners with your point of view. I would 
compliment them on that. 

I just had only two or three points that have bothered us a great 
deal about the prevailing wage, as the Director indicated. I have 
called and I think there have been other calls made to the Civil 
Service Commission; letters written back and forth; Mr. Leonoudakis 
has written letters back and forth which we have received copies of. 



Minutes, March 19, 1985, Page 11 



The Airport staff has tried to find out if in fact there is a 
prevailing wage that the Civil Service Commission could legally or 
justly set even within certain perameters. There is no such wage 
definition for an Airporter-type operation. The Civil Service 
Commission's bus driver wage designation, as they establish it, is 
for Muni which is based upon an average, by charter, throughout the 
nation. It is not based on a prevailing wage of the Bay Area or the 
San Francisco area. There is no way, because I agree with the points 
that were made, that it would be much more equitable if the people 
could start at the same starting line knowing about within what area 
that the prevailing wages would be and I am satisfied that this is 
not possible for us to legally do that. And, that there is a 
procedure set up under the Prevailing Wage Ordinance whereby these 
appeals could be made and I understand that there is some argument as 
to whether the City Attorney is correct in that opinion. But, we 
have to go with our legal opinion which sounds as though it has 
merit. That was probably the most important issue that we had 
besides the location of the terminal. 

I have maintained since we first discussed this in 1979 that the City 
should have that terminal. I even made the suggestion that even 
after we had accepted the bid, that we proceed to find out if it was 
not possible for the City in some way to develop a downtown terminal 
that it would control either by lease or by sale. The Airport can't 
do it but there are other City departments that can do it and I think 
for a city this size and this sophisticated to rely upon succeeding 
bus companies to provide the type of terminal; those people are our 
responsibility until they have arrived and disbursed in San 
Francisco. That is the way I look upon it and I think we are 
abdicating that responsibility when we leave it up to the bus company 
to provide whatever type of convenience that they can within certain 
guidelines. I just think that we eliminate that possibility in 
future arguments over this that the City would go ahead and develop 
some type of structure. I maintained it then and I maintain it now. 
Short of that I think that the resolutions that we passed in 
September, 1979 gives the clear indication that we have the 
commitment to include that into the specifications and I think the 
Commission is going to try to take some action on that this morning 
because there is that responsibility and commitment that this 
Commission made. It is tied up with a lot of other language but I 
think that it was made as to what the commitment is on our part and 
we have an idea what the commitment is on the part of the present 
operator of that terminal. They have an idea, but I think we must 
address that responsibility in some way and I think the Commission 
will address that later on. Those were the two big items. 

I'm satisfied with the 12 bus thing. I spent last Wednesday going 
around with the staff on this for about two hours and they have 
convinced me that they have looked at it. It might have been a slow 
day but I think a Super Bowl or something was going on that was 
bringing people to the City. I am satisfied that they have looked at 
all the extenuating circumstances for a trip to the City, not to 
Fisherman's Wharf and not to the Financial District, etc., but to the 
City. Our responsibility of getting to the City of San Francisco is 
met by those 12 busses with some left over for emergencies, extra 
loads, etc. Sheldon (Fein) tried to point out in the public meeting 
where he tried to address and look at all the other options and 
extenuating circumstances that would make those additional busses, 
but I appreciate the points that you raised about your fear. The 
10-minute loading zone and headway is not top and bottom level. It 
is 10 minutes as you enter that arriving area; 10 minutes to get in 
and out of there; it's not for both the top and bottom level. We 
understand that you may have traffic problems; that will be 



Minutes, March 19, 1985, Page 12 



subtracted from the time. I don't think that is an unreasonable 
attitude on the part of the Commission or of the staff about that 
10-minute headway. These were listened to by the Commission and 
reconciled in my mind. I just wanted you to know that we haven't 
ignored them. 

The last thing is the deplaning passenger. The Director made a very 
reasonable, enlightened view of that deplaned passenger bid item. I 
have felt that it would be as most other contracts are written that a 
percentage of gross and a minimum annual guarantee would be adequate 
to cover the Airport. I felt that as the discussion was made both by 
our Director and by the business community that if we expect them to 
make more aggressive efforts to get the passengers to use the 
Airporter, which is certainly a worthwhile goal, that we should allow 
them to get some type of signing, some type of aggressive action that 
they can take. As the deplaning passengers leave the gate that there 
be some preapproved signing that tells them what the rates are, when 
the Airporter bus comes, how often they will leave, etc. And maybe 
another one when they pickup the luggage. That we give them an 
opportunity to market their services. If you are going to use and 
expect them to increase the ridership of that population then I think 
we ought to untie their hands because now we have a very strict 
policy against advertising in the Airport. We should relax that to 
the extent that we allow Airporter to do that. Otherwise they have 
no more advantage than any other hotel who sends out a bus to get 
people to come to their hotel. We don't give them any advantage but 
yet they have to sign a commitment to pay us so much money a year. 
If that agreement could be agreed upon by the staff, that there could 
be some type of arrangement worked out with the successful bidder, 
that he could approach the deplaning passengers, I could then vote 
for this with the addition hopefully that the Commission will agree 
to put in concerning the downtown terminal. Those are my main points. 

I hope that the people are satisfied that the Commission did listen 
to you and there are certain other actions we are going to take a 
look at about the taxi lot, that doesn't happen to be a part of this 
bid. The Airport management handles the taxi lot. That will come up 
later on in the year. That was a point that needs to be looked at as 
to whether there is any conflict of interest between that operation 
and the management of the taxi lot. Those were most of the points 
that were raised. 

The exclusivity he directed. There are so many busses coming in and 
off that Airport that we can't stop, we might be opening ourselves to 
suits we don't know about and we have no right to stop hotels, 
motels, etc. from sending busses out there to transport people in. 
It is a question that bothers me but anybody who bids on the Airport 
has to take all of this into account and protect themselves 
accordingly. Doing business with the City is the toughest 
institution to do business with because you've got so many variables 
and possibilities. 

Commissioner Coblentz: I agreed with just about everything Zoo 
Goosby said. I would like to propose an amendment to the bid 
specification. This is a little inelegant and I would like the City 
Attorney to sort of round it out in good legalese, but it is as 
follows : 

The bid specifications be amended to include the use of the downtown 
terminal provided that Airporter and Leaseco agree in writing with 
the Director by 5:00 p.m., March 27, 1985 that should they not be the 
winning bidder to transfer the terminal and leasehold upon payment of 



Minutes, March 19, 1985, Page 13 



the then unammortized balance of the cost of construction as 
reflected in schedules filed with the Internal Revenue Service and 
the assumption of the lease by the winning bidder pursuant to Airport 
Commission resolution number 79-0341 of September 18, 1979. 

That is my motion. 

Commissioner Goosby: I second. 

Commissioner Bernstein: If there is another bid or another winner 
that they would have the right to assume on a depreciated basis. 

Mr. Turpen: It is my further understanding then that if, in fact, 
this documentation is not forthcoming staff would then be directed to 
move forward. 

Commissioner Coblentz: Once we pass the basic resolution with the 
amendment it is out of our hands. We go on with the basic 
resolution. I have a time here of 5:00 p.m. on March 27, 1985. 

Commissioner Bernstein: Subject to approval by the Commission and 
the Director. 

Mr. Turpen: In other words as this amendment would impact our 
current specifications if certain documentation were received by the 
Director by 5:00 p.m. on March 27, the terminal would be included, if 
not then this would go forward with no reference to a downtown 
terminal other than those generic references made in this 
specification. 

Commissioner Bernstein: This is not an arbitrary position on our 
part because it was the sort of thing that was discussed back in the 
late 70 's when the Airporter was bid. Is that correct? 

Commissioner Coblentz: I incorporate by reference that particular 
resolution 79-0341. 

Commissioner Goosby: He named that in the resolution and the 
resolution says "assume all obligations". 

Commissioner Coblentz: Mr. President, may I call for the question, 
first on the amendment and then on the resolution. 

The roll was called and the amendment was unanimously approved with 
Commissioner Fleishell abstaining from the vote. 

Commissioner Goosby: Before you vote on that I just wanted to get a 
response from Lou about the ability of the successful bidder to do 
some sort of legitimate marketing toward those deplaning passengers 
to acquaint them with the services of the Airporter. 

Mr. Turpen: Dr. Goosby, let me call your attention to two areas 
which might help clarify this. One is on page 4 of the bid specs, 
Section 401, paragraph 2. It says "The right, at its own cost and 
expense, to install and operate signs and schedules on the Airport 
for the purpose of identifying Operator and informing the public of 
the services offered by Operator and the charges made therefor. The 
number, size, height, location and general type and design of such 
signs and schedule shall be subject to the prior written approval of 
Director..." which is consistent, of course, with all of our signing 
requirements at the Airport. On the previous page we talk about the 
"Operator will be given the option to design and construct a counter 



Minutes, March 19, 1985, Page 14 



inside each Terminal Building and a booth along the lower level 
curbside at each Terminal..." so that he might man those booths and 
provide information, sell tickets or whatever the operator might want 
to do. I feel that those two paragraphs speak to the issue you are 
raising. If they do not I'd be happy to respond. 

Commissioner Coblentz: Zoo, I would assume that they do and if not 
we will come in on it. I think that the intent of what you propose 
is clear to all of us. 

Commissioner Goosby: As long as the intent of the Commission is 
there in supporting those. As long as you're in this stuff you know 
you are going to have ten words and ten different people will 
interpret them ten different ways. My interpretation of those words 
is, as I have so stated, and I think the Director agrees that my 
interpretation is an accurate interpretation of that wording. I 
would feel secure in doing that. I don't think that the Board would 
be averse to the Director trying to develop some type of resolution 
in the next few weeks that would direct him toward at lease pursuing 
with the appropriate City agency the eventual obtaining of a 
terminal, either through lease or sale by the City in five years time 
at the end of the term or even at the ten year interval, at the end 
of the term that this lease is going to go, so that it would not 
interfere in any way with the bidding of this document but I just 
feel that I would be remiss in my responsibility, because I strongly 
believe that it didn' t get off the ground before because I guess I 
didn't have the votes to get it passed and apparently I don't have 
the votes to get a resolution passed now. I'm just doing this on the 
seat of my pants hopefully that we can get something going on this in 
the next year or two so that we are least working toward a successful 
conclusion of this. I can see in five years time we are going to be 
right back in this spot again or ten years time right back in it 
again. I won't be here then, but I don't want somebody to say well 
why didn't those so and so's take care of this like we're talking 
about the people who built Candlestick Park, not putting a dome on 
it, etc. 

Commissioner Bernstein: May we call the roll? 

The roll was called. The resolution was unanimously adopted with 
Commissioner Fleishell abstaining from the vote. 



H. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (continued) : 

The following items were unanimously adopted. 

5. Award of Contract No. 1380 

Replacement of PCB Transformers 

No. 85-0076 Resolution awarding Contract No. 1380, 

Replacement of PCB Transformers, to 
Fischbach and Moore, Inc., in the 
amount of £277,200.00. The purpose of 
this contract is to replace three PCB 
filled transformers with non-PCB 
transformers. 



Two bids were received on February 21, 
1985 ranging from £273,000 to £277,200. 



Minutes, March 19, 1985, Page 15 



6. Lease Modification - Skyline Candy 

No. 85-0077 Resolution approving modification of 

lease for Skyline Candy and Gifts, Inc. 

Conunissioner Tsougarakis asked for clarification on the modifications 
made by the City Attorney. 

Mr. Garibaldi responded that his office reviewed the proposed 
extension of the current lease at the request of Commissioner 
Fleishell. It was agreed that the term could be extended, however, 
upon further review the term of the extension was reduced by about 4 
months from what was orginally proposed. 

Commissioner Goosby asked why the Airport was extending the lease. 

Mr. Garibaldi responded that the lease was being extended because the 
Airport has curtailed the activities of the present lessee in the 
South Terminal due to the renovation in that terminal. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that the length of the extension should 
coincide with the amount of time the lessee's operation was 
interrupted. 

Commissioner Coblentz left the meeting at this point. 



F. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

2. Free Baggage Carts in Customs: Status Report 

Summary of first week of trial period 
for free-of-charge baggage carts in 
Customs . 

Mr. Turpen said the report was self-explanatory. Pan Am is currently 
involved in a strike which has resulted in cancellation of a number 
of their flights. We do know that a number of their passengers have 
gone over to other airlines because some of the other carriers are 
experiencing a significant increase in the number of passengers. We 
do not know what the magnitude of the impact Pan Am' s dispute has on 
these numbers. 

Mr. Turpen noted that Customs arrivals during this period is up 20 
percent over last year due to the commencement of the military 
airlift command flights in San Francisco. These are 747 charters and 
virtually all are full. 

Mr. Turpen said he will return to the Commission at the first meeting 
in April with a final report on the month. Hopefully Pan Am will 
have resumed operations and staff will have a much better picture at 
that time. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked when there would be a final 
determi nat ion . 



Minutes, March 19, 1985, Page 16 



Mr. Turpen responded that it is really a question for the Commission 
to decide. Once provided with a history and a projection on an 
annualized basis the Commission will be in a better position to make 
a decision. At this point we are experiencing a little more than one 
cart for every two passengers. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis commented that she went out to the Airport 
on the first day of the test and observed three flights within 45 
minutes of each other; one was a light load, one was a medium load, 
and the other was a full military flight. She felt it went smoothly 
and added that if it continues to take as long as it does to get the 
baggage to the carousel there will never be a problem. 

Commissioner Bernstein said that the Commission has to make some sort 
of decision if the item is to be placed in the budget. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the Airport's budget meeting with the Mayor 
will be on April 10 and staff will have the results of the test prior 
to that date. 



3. Update on the Proposed Charter Amendment to Allow the Airport to 
Negotiate the Sale of Securities 

Mr. Turpen said he would like to put the item over. 

Commissioner Fleishell said he was strongly opposed to any tampering 
with the Charter to allow for the negotiated sale of securities. He 
said this subject came up when the Charter Revision Commission met 
about six years ago. He said that when the Airport settled the 
litigation with the airlines it was not included in the Charter 
amendment put through at that time. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that this is a highly specialized field 
and he did not feel anyone on staff was qualified to handle it nor 
did he think we had the votes on the Board of Supervisors. 

Commission Bernstein said he, too, was opposed to this. 

Commissioner Goosby felt it should go through a bidding process. 



H. ITEMS RELATING ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (continued): 

The following items were unanimously adopted. 

7. Supplemental Appropriation in the Amount of $9,567,881.00 to Fund 
Approved Capital Projects 

No. 85-0078 Resolution authorizing a $9,567,881.00 

request for supplemental appropriation 
from Airport bond funds to provide 
funding for approved capital projects. 



Minutes, March 19, 1985, Page 17 



8. Month-to-Month Hold Over of North Terminal Leases 

No. 85-0079 Four resolutions approving 

No. 85-0080 month-to-month hold over tenancies of 

No. 85-0081 the following North Terminal 

No. 85-0082 Concession Leases, pending the start 

up of new leases: 

ABC Candy Shop 
Paradies Flower Shop 
San Francisco Sunglasses 
Flying Crab 



The following item was put over. 

9. Rental Credit to Host International, Inc. 

Resolution approving rental credit to 
Host International, Inc. for 
improvements done in the 
International (Central) Terminal 
pursuant to Resolution No. 83-0114. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked for an explanation of the rental credit. 

Mr. Yuen explained that the work performed was for fire safety and 
according to the lease agreement the Airport is obligated to 
reimburse Host. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked what the lease said. 

Skip Conrad, Head Property Manager, stated that there are certain 
parts of the lease that provide for what the City should do and what 
Host should do. In this instance Host was not obligated to make some 
of these improvements under their lease. 

Mr. Turpen said that the Commission authorized, with the adoption of 
resolution number 83-0114, a rental credit to Host. 

Commissioner Fleishell said this resulted, in part, with the 
renovation of the Central Terminal where part of Host's facility was 
demolished. The Airport agreed to restore the area but found that it 
had to be restored to code. 

Commissioner Bernstein requested that this item be put over until the 
next meeting so that the lease could be read. 

Commissioner Goosby asked what the space on the fourth floor is being 
used for. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the U.S.O. is occupying it as an initial 
tenant. He said that the space is larger than U.S.O. requires and 
could be used for long term baggage storage or a business center. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked for Host's lease for the Ice Cream 
Parlor. 

Mr. Turpen said he did not believe there was a lease for the Ice 
Cream Parlor but he would send him the resolution for that concession. 



Minutes, March 19, 1985, Page 18 



The following item was unanimously adopted. 

10. Contract with The Parry Company - $10,000 

85-0083 Contract with The Parry Company to 

provide noise impact contours for the 
twelve month period preceding 
December 31, 1984 and June 1, 1985 to 
be used to calculate the dwelling 
unit count; $10,000. 



I. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROOTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

The following items were unanimously adopted. 

11. Retirement Resolution - Raymond Heil 

No. 85-0084 Resolution expressing best wishes for 

the fullest measure of health, 
happiness and fruitful retirement to 
Raymond Heil. 



12. Rental Credit - Duty Free Shoppers 

No. 85-0085 Resolution approving rental credit to 

Duty Free Shoppers in the amount of 
$77,456.82 for the installation of a 
freight elevator to access Boarding 
Area D. 

Mr. Yuen explained that Duty Free built one of the elevators for the 
Airport that is used by several tenants. Under the lease agreement 
the Airport is supposed to furnish this elevator. The $77,000 figure 
is basically what the bid price was. 

Mr. Turpen said that this goes back to the discussion we had when we 
decided we wanted to put concessions on either side of the terminal 
concourse and needed access to them. This allows us to get the 
merchandise up to the second floor without carrying it. 



13. Rejection of Bids and Authorization to Rebid Contract No. 1200B-18 
Rehabilitation of Elevators - International Terminal 

No. 85-0086 Resolution rejecting all bids for 

Contract No. 1200B-18 and authorizing 
the Director of Airports to 
readvertise and call for bids when 
ready. 



Minutes, March 19, 1985, Page 19 



14. Award of Airport Contract No. 1250G 
Pavement Grooving, R/W 19L, North End 

No. 85-0087 Resolution awarding Contract No. 

1250G to Hunt Contracting Company in 
the amount of $76, 960.00. 

Two bids were received on February 
28, 1985 ranging from £76, 960.00 to 
£87, 360.00. 



15. Resolution Approving Assignment of Lease, Air California 

No. 85-0088 Resolution approving the assignment 

of Lease and Use Agreement No. 
82-0109 from Air California to Air 
Cal, Inc. of Delaware. 



16. Request for Approval of Travel/Training for Airports Commission 
Representat i ves 

No. 85-0089 Resolution authorizing 

representatives to attend conferences 
and/or seminars through June 1985. 



G. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

Commissioner Fleishell, referring to Senator Robert Presley's bill, S.B. 
556, said he had the attornies do an analysis of it and it is a disaster. 
He said that Senator Presley seems to take the position that he is 
striking a happy middle ground but in fact he is not. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that a memo from the Director indicated that 
no hearing had been set and he would keep the Commission advised. He said 
staff needs a better procedure. First, a hearing request had been in, a 
hearing was set but the reason the hearing isn't set is because he does 
not yet have the votes. He said that as soon as we learn of a bill we 
must move quickly as the Senator or Assemblyman will move immediately to 
gather votes to call the Committee hearing not realizing that anyone is 
against it. Commissioner Fleishell said a number of steps must be taken: 
1. There should be a Commission resolution. 2. We have to have an 
appearance before the City Policy Committee to have the City instruct Ed 
Gerber to do that. He said that has already been taken care of because he 
talked to Gerber. 



Commissioner Fleishell said Ron Wilson should be congratulated on the 
great job he did appearing before the City of South San Francisco in 
connection with this real estate development. However, he said Harold 
McElhenny was not even aware that this condition occurred. He felt it was 
critically important that the attorney handling our noise problem know of 



Minutes, March 19, 1985, Page 20 



this because the EIR filed in this matter is totally inadequate. He 
suggested a meeting with perhaps Commissioner Bernstein, Mr. Turpen, Mr. 
Garibaldi, the City Council of South San Francisco and the Mayor to let 
them know how strongly we feel that they are creating a situation that is 
absolutely impossible. He said that on the basis of federal law the 
Airport has filed its noise map and none of the people who are going to 
buy these homes can sue us. 

Mr. Turpen stated that the Commission had previously discussed this and 
authorized the Director to take whatever steps were necessary, including 
filing a lawsuit on the EIR. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that we must first have the Mayor's permission 
to move on this because we have our jail and a hospital in San Mateo as 
well as problems with water and garbage so we just can't sue San Mateo. 
He said he has talked to the County and told them they are out of line and 
they agree. He said San Mateo suggested having the meeting. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis suggested that Mr. Turpen get together with 
Commissioner Fleishell as the intent of the Commission has already been 
expressed that the Director move ahead. If Commissioner Fleishell has 
specific suggestions they should be dealt with independently. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if the noise litigation was finished. 

Mr. Garibaldi responded that that was just one aspect of the noise 
litigation having to do with jury trials in small claims cases. The other 
cases are still pending. 

Commissioner Goosby suggested that the next time the Airport gets involved 
with small claims cases we look at our MBE and joint venture 
responsibilities. He said he never understood why we didn't insist that 
there be joint venturing on small claims cases. He wanted to know why the 
Airport had to have the biggest law firm in the United States just to 
handle those cases. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the attorneys were precluded from getting 
involved in small claims court. 

Commissioner Goosby said he understood that however the law firm is 
advising us. 



J . CORRESPONDENCE : 

There was no discussion by the Commission. 



Minutes, March 19, 1985, Page 21 



K. TRAILING CALENDAR: 

There was no discussion of trailing calendar items. 



M. ADJ0URNME3SIT: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 10:56 A.M. 




Jea# Caramatti 

dssion Secretary 




Minutes, March 19, 1985, Page 22 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 



MINUTES 



APRIL 2, 1985 



DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

WILLIAM K. COBLENTZ 

Vice-President 

DR. Z.L. GOOSBY 

J. EDWARD FLEISHELL 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 

LOUIS A.TURPEN 

Director of Airports 

San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

April 2, 1985 



Calendar 


Agenda 




Section 


Item 


Title 


A. 




CALL TO ORDER: 


B. 




ROLL CALL: 


C. 




ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY 


D. 




SPECIAL ITEMS: 



Resolution 
Number 



Page 



Verbal Progress Report: 
Specifications on the 
Airport Motor Coach Service 
Agreement 

DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

Roundtable Meeting - Verbal 
Report 

Free Baggage Carts in 
Customs - Week 3 Report 

ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

POLICY: 



4-6 



7-8 
8 



Resolution Supporting 
Assembly Bill 1801 

Resolution Opposing 
Senate Bill 556 



85-0093 



85-0094 



8-10 



8-10 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 



South Terminal Tenant Improve- 
ments - Approval of Design 
(Host International, Inc.) 

Automobile Service Station 
Lease - Authorization to Bid 

Valet Parking - Rate Increase 

Financial Services Lease - 
Authorization of Pre-Bid 
Conference 



85-0095 



11-12 

12-15 

15-16 

16 



Minutes, April 2, 1985, Page 1 



Calendar 
Section 



Agenda 
Item 



Title 



Resolution 
Number 



Page 



Lease of Hosiery and 
Related Gifts/Authorization 
to Receive Bids 



85-0096 



17 



10. 



11. 



12, 



13, 



Authorization to Receive 
Bids for Lease of "Forget- 
Me-Not" Shop in the North 
Terminal Building 

Authorization to Receive 
Bids for Lease of Crab 
and Seafood Kiosks in the 
North Terminal Building 

Rental Credit to Host 
International, Inc. 

Award of Airport Contract 
No. 1493 - Overlay & Re- 
Construct Taxiway "A" at 
Boarding Area "A" 



85-0097 



85-0098 



85-0099 



85-0100 



17 



17-18 



18-19 



19 



I. 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 



14, 



Declaration of Emergency - 
Water Lines Repair, Airport 
Contract No. 1640 



85-0101 



19-20 



15. 



16. 



Award of Airport Contract 
No. 1585R - Emergency 
Fencing Repair 

Bid Call - Airport 
Contract No. 1568 
Paving the Center 
of Garage 



85-0102 



85-0103 



20 



20 



17. 



Bid Call - Airport Contract 
No. 1514 - International 
Terminal New Janitor Sinks 
and Booster Heaters 



85-0104 



20 



18. 



SFO Shuttle Bus Service 
Agreement No. 68252, 
Modification No. 3 



85-0105 



21 



19. 



Extension of Time for 
Jordan/Avent Associates 
Contract 



85-0106 



21 



20. 



Request for Approval of 
Travel/Training for 
Airports Commission 
Representatives 



85-0107 



20 



Minutes, April 2, 1985, Page 2 



Calendar Agenda 
Section Item 



Title 



Resolution 
Number 



Page 



J. 
K. 
M. 



CORRESPONDENCE: 
TRAILING CALENDAR: 
ADJOURNMENT: 



21 
21 
21 



Minutes, April 2, 1985, Page 3 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

April 2, 1985 



A. CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:00 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



B. ROLL CALL: 

Present: 



Absent: 



Commissioners Morris Bernstein, 
Z. L. Goosby, J. Edward Fleishell, 
Athena Tsougarakis. 

William K. Coblentz. 



C. ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 



In accordance with Section 54957.1 of 
the Brown Act, Jean Caramatti, 
Commission Secretary, announced 
unanimous adoption of Resolution 
Numbers 85-0090 and 85-0091 regarding 
the settlement of litigated claims at 
the closed session of March 19, 1985. 



D. SPECIAL ITEM: 



Verbal Progress Report: 

Specifications on the Airport Motor Coach Service Agreement- 
Mr. Turpen, Airport Director, said that the Commission had 
established a deadline of March 27, 1985, 5:00 p.m. for the 
submission of certain documentation by LeaseCo and Mr. Leonoudakis 
regarding the dowtown terminal at Taylor and Ellis Street. In 
addition, the Commission required that Mr. Leonoudakis execute an 
agreement between the Airports Commission and LeaseCo pertaining to 
the downtown terminal. He said that Mr. Leonoudakis has presented 
the required information to the Commission. Mr. Turpen said that a 



Minutes, April 2, 1985, Page 4 



preliminary review of the information by staff appears to meet the 
established criteria. He said that barring any unforeseen problems 
the downtown terminal at Taylor and Ellis Streets will be included in 
the Airport Motor Coach Bid Specifications. The specifications will 
be amended accordingly and sent to the Commission for final review. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked Mr. Lindberg of Grovesnor Bus Lines if 
he would like to address the Commission on the downtown terminal. 

Mr. Lindberg urged the Commission to insure that the Airport Motor 
Coach Service Agreement does not preclude the successful bidder from 
moving the downtown terminal under certain conditions. He said the 
successful bidder would have to relieve LeaseCo of its obligations on 
the ground lease and pay LeaseCo its unammortized construction costs 
per the March 19th resolution. The successful bidder would have to 
prove that the new location is better for the City and would have to 
show that the new location could be passed on to the next operator 
five or ten years down the road. Finally, the successful bidder 
would have to get the consent of the Airports Commission. 

Mr. Lindberg said that Mr. Garibaldi indicated that such a change in 
the terminal could be made after five years under the existing terms 
of the Agreement. He understood that there is some feeling in the 
Commission to make that terminal permanent, and possibly have the 
City purchase it. He felt that the discussions and efforts on the 
part of the Commission will be continued in the next five years and 
felt that five years may be too late to arrive at the best terminal 
for the City. He urged the Commission to leave the door open to 
proposals for a better terminal right at the very beginning. 

Mr. Lindberg requested that the Commission prohibit LeaseCo from 
entering into new long term subleases or extending existing subleases 
for considerable periods of time until a successful bidder is 
determined. He said those types of prohibitions are very common in 
real estate purchases or sales agreements. 

Commissioner Goosby said the point about the leases being extended 
was valid. He asked if there had been any effort to protect against 
the extension of the leases beyond a certain date and if it was 
possible for the Commission to do that in view of the fact that one 
of the leasees is in financial difficulty. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that even though he did not vote on the 
matter it was his feeling that legally the Commission does not have 
to wait five years before an agreement could be structured permitting 
the City to buy the terminal. The agreement can be structured within 
the present term. He said that in any purchase of a building or a 
ground lease of the building there is always a requirement that the 
seller may not, during the closure period, make any material change 
as to any tenant. He felt that should be standard boiler plate 
language. 

Commissioner Bernstein said that there have been two moves in the 
last couple of years and Mr. Lindberg was suggesting we leave the 
door open for a possible third move. He said that he would be 
utterly opposed to this. He added that the other problem is that the 
Commission assured Mr. Leonoudakis that he would have the backing of 
the Airport. 

Mr. Lindberg responded that the existing terminal at Taylor and Ellis 
may end up being owned by the succesful bidder and put to whatever 
purpose the bidder would want. A new terminal, in a different 
location could then be built. He felt that if the City is thinking 
about buying a permanent terminal then it ought to give some thought 
to the best possible location. 



Minutes, April 2, 1985, Page 5 



Commissioner Bernstein told Mr. Lindberg that the terminal is on land 
owned by the Diocese. 

Mr. Lindberg responded that there are 30 years left on the ground 
lease. 



E. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

1. Roundtable Meeting - Verbal Report 

Mr. Turpen reported that this was a follow-up on the Airport 
Community Roundtable meeting of last Thursday evening. He said that 
Ron Wilson made a presentation at a preliminary hearing for the 
Shearwater Project. Mr. Turpen explained that this project is 
anticipated to be built under our existing shoreline departure path, 
which is our primary noise mitigation flight path. He said a 
commercial development was initially envisioned but has grown to 
include some 350 units for residential use. Mr. Turpen said this has 
caused some serious concern and the matter was brought to the 
Roundtable' s attention last Thursday. He said that the Roundtable is 
taking the following four actions: It is communicating its concerns 
to the Airport Land/Use Commission which will be calendaring this 
item in the near future; it has communicated its concern to the City 
of South San Francisco; it has requested copies of the EIR; and, it 
will consider a resolution formally opposing residential units under 
that existing flight path if the Roundtable 's review of the EIR 
warrants such a position. 

Mr. Turpen added that the Rountable consists of 13 members. The 
majority of the member-communities are those in the vicinity of the 
Airport such as South San Francisco, San Bruno, Pacifica, Colma, San 
Mateo, as well as San Francisco and the Airport. He said he will 
continue to keep the Commission advised. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked what the Airport is doing about dealing 
with the City of South San Francisco. The County of San Mateo 
recommended a high level meeting with the City Council of South San 
Francisco and the Mayor. He felt that type of meeting should be held 
rather than dealing with an organization that has no legal authority. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the Mayor of South San Francisco attended 
the Roundtable meeting and said she felt they could adequately 
insulate the homes. He said they are firm in their position and they 
have asked for an opportunity to demonstrate this through their EIR. 
Mr. Turpen said he did not agree that insulation would be adequate. 
He felt that South San Francisco is not presently of a mind to amend 
its plans, which are extremely preliminary, but felt that the Airport 
Land Use Commission action, as well as action by the Roundtable will 
cause them to reconsider this matter. He did not feel anything would 
be gained by meeting directly with their City Council or the Mayor at 
this point except create a confrontation which would not be in the 
best interest of the Airport. 

Mr. Turpen added that Councilwoman Teglia, who is the representative 
of South San Francisco, was also at the Roundtable meeting. He said 
that the Councilwoman is working with the Airport on insulating homes 
in South San Francisco due to noise. At the same time, South San 
Francisco is talking about building more homes under an existing 
flight pattern. Mr. Turpen felt that there will be enough concern 
voiced in the development of the residential area that will cause the 
City of South San Francisco to reconsider. 



Minutes, April 2, 1985, Page 6 



2. Free Baggage Carts in Customs: Week 3 Report 

Director's Report on summary of three 
weeks of trial period for free baggage 
carts in Customs. 

Mr. Turpen said that the numbers are very similar to the report that 

staff last provided the Commission. During the first three weeks of 

the report about 28,000 carts exited Customs, or about one cart for 
every two people. 

Mr. Turpen reminded the Commission that the study was originally 
established with a maximum two-month duration depending on 
availability of funds. He said there were enough funds to cover the 
entire period. Mr. Turpen said that now that Pan Am is back and on a 
full schedule we should see a difference in the numbers. He 
explained that the question is will useage increase with Pan Am 
coming in or will it remain fairly constant? He explained that we do 
not know how many people amended their international flight plans 
because of the Pan Am situation. Mr. Turpen said he will present 
another progress report at the next meeting. 

Commissioner Goosby noted that Smarte Carte has one or two employees 
retrieving the carts. He hoped staff was keeping a watchful eye to 
see if Smarte Carte was developing a realistic figure for the cost of 
the operation. He said he has noticed a lot of people retrieving the 
carts to the North and South Terminals for the 25 cent refund. He 
thought these independents were retrieving more carts than Smarte 
Carte employees and that the retrievals were being handled 
efficiently with the aid of these independents. Commissioner Goosby 
said that at one time the Commission discussed the possibility of 
barriers and with the cost of a "free" cart system he felt that 
options such as barriers should be reconsidered. 

Mr. Turpen stated that at this point the Airport is reimbursing 
Smarte Carte a dollar a cart. He said that the system works very 
well operationally because the carts are retrieved and there is no 
shortage. He said there was a slight increase in our passenger 
arrival traffic because of the MAC flights. These military flights 
carry between 450 and 500 passengers on each 747 and there is 
significant cart useage among the military personnel. He felt that 
this appears to be a good solid number and hopefully Pan Am's return 
will give us a good idea of our annual costs or at least a foundation 
against which we can measure our annual cost. 

Commission Tsougarakis commented that it looked like it would be 
around $450,000 to $500,000 if Smarte Carte agrees to do it. 

Mr. Turpen said that if Smarte Carte says that they cannot do it for 
$1 a cart we will have to hire employees to try and do it at that 
price. He felt that if Smarte Carte, with a profit motive, can't 
manage it for $1 a cart, he would have some concerns about the 
Airport being able to do it. 

Mr. Turpen said that the amount staff came up with for the Airport to 
run it was around $500,000 a year which is about what staff 
anticipates we would pay Smarte Carte if we were to extrapolate these 
numbers. He explained that there are no capital costs involved on 
this alternative with Smarte Carte, however, if the Airport ran it we 
would have to put in some capital monies to purchase the carts in 
addition to the current operating cost of approximately $500,000 per 
year. 

Mr. Turpen said he would keep the Commission advised. 



Minutes, April 2, 1985, Page 7 



Commissioner Fleishell said the Airport is paying Smarte Carte 
precisely what they got from the public and made a profit. 

Mr. Turpen responded that he did not know, at this point, if Smarte 
Carte is not making a profit. He said that perhaps it was due to the 
increased number of carts, where they go and the added cost of trying 
to retrieve more carts into Customs. He said there are approximately 
twice as many carts going out of Customs now which means twice as 
many to retrieve. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said we are just speculating. 



F. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

Commissioner Tsougarkis felt that the trailing calendar should be more 
meaningful. She requested, with the approval of the rest of the 
Commission, that all expired leases, items and issues be incorporated into 
the trailing calendar with expiration dates and the date that the action 
was started. 

Mr. Turpen asked for clarification on the initiating point on these items. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis explained that the dates could be associated with 
leases as well as dates that items are issued. She said she did not 
intend to be judgmental but it would help her to understand what the 
Commission's business is and how to keep count of issues. 

Commissioner Fleishell thought it was a good idea. 



G. POLICY: 

Items 3 and 4 were called together and unanimously adopted. 

3. Resolution Supporting Assembly Bill 18 01 

No. 85-0093 Recommendation of Airports Commission 

resolution supporting noise related 
legislation - AB 1801. 



4. Resolution Opposing Senate Bill 556 

No. 85-0094 Recommendation of Airports Commission 

resolution opposing noise related 
legislation - SB 556. 

Mr. Turpen said that these resolutions formalize the Commission's 
position. He said that upon action of the Commission staff will 
transmit these resolutions to the Mayor. The Mayor has indicated 
that she would like to forward these matters to the Legislature 



Minutes, April 2, 1985, Page 8 



through our Lobbyist, Mr. Gerber, and has asked that she be allowed 
to transmit these items through her office. 

Commissioner Fleishell felt this was a useless gesture. He said that 
Orange County had originally asked Mr. Robinson to introduce this 
bill but is not even supporting it because they feel it is a waste of 
time. The Governor has vetoed it twice and there has been no move to 
try and change his mind. He said that Mr. Garibaldi prepared an 
opinion dealing with the Governor's veto message where he said the 
Airport had authority to do certain things. Commissioner Fleishell 
said that he had always been told that the Airport did not have that 
authority. Part of that opinion indicates that the FAA has already 
turned us down on a number of things because of "lack of 
information." He asked if staff ever followed up and gave the FAA 
the requisite information to get a direct denial so that we could 
challenge the Governor's opinion. 

Mr. Turpen responded that we have not given them more information 
because it has not been our intent to establish a curfew. He 
explained that the FAA is referring to certain flight restriction 
suggestions which emanated from the Joint Land Use Study. He said 
that all potential noise mitigation measures were incorporated into 
the Part 150 submission for several reasons. One of the primary 
reasons was that it gave the Airport a very broad base from which to 
select noise mitigation measures which could be eligible for federal 
reimbursement. The FAA approved our entire 150 submission with the 
exception of one generic category of mitigation alternative, namely 
flight-related activities. Mr. Turpen said that it has not been our 
intent to implement any of those flight-related activities because we 
do not have the authority to do so; the FAA does. Therefore, we 
would not have established a policy or taken a position which would 
require us to go to the FAA and ask them to amend our current flight 
restrictions simply because it is not our intent at this time to do 
that. He said that noise is being controlled fairly effectively. 
The number of impacted homes is going down, we've met our 1987 goals, 
and the mitigation plan seems to be working. To entertain ideas of 
flight alternative modification through the Part 150 submittal is 
something that the Airport has not pursued. He said that if the 
Commission feels it should be pursued then we will, but he 
recommended that the Airport continue to work on those things that 
are manageable and that we can work on in order to reduce noise. 

Commissioner Fleishell did not understand Mr. Turpen' s explanation 
saying that the FAA submittal is to determine whether we have the 
authority. 

Mr. Turpen disagreed. He explained that if we submit "Alternative A" 
to the FAA, their standard response is "disapproved pending further 
information." If we elect to implement "Alternative A," we have to 
go back to the FAA with a fuller explanation of what we want to do. 
That does not necessarily mean the FAA will give us the authority to 
implement it. 

Commissioner Fleishell felt that Mr. Turpen was missing the point. 
The Governor's veto message says he did not sign this bill two years 
in a row because the Airport already has the authority. The 
Commission has been told by Mr. Turpen and by counsel that we do not 
have that authority. Plans are sent to the FAA to determine whether 
the Airport can implement them. He said the FAA has approved some 
and disapproved others for lack of sufficient information. 
Commissioner Fleishell said that what we should be 



Minutes, April 2, 1985, Page 9 



trying to do is convince the Governor is that he is in error. 
Commissioner Fleishell complained that he is getting resistance from 
staff so he will take no further action on any of these bills. 

Commissioner Goosby agreed with Commissioner Fleishell. He added 
that the other part of the problem was introducing this kind of 
evidence in the hearings. 

Commissioner Fleishell responded that it is not a question of the 
hearing. He said the Commission amended this bill to conform to the 
Governor's staff's wishes. Although the Airport was told the 
Governor would sign the bill he vetoed it instead. He said the 
Governor's veto message indicated that airports have not taken the 
kind of action they have the power to take to solve this problem 
themselves. 

Commissioner Fleishell said we have to find a simplistic way to 
demonstrate to the Governor through his staff that the Airport has 
made certain efforts but the FAA has ruled that we don't have the 
authority. 

Commissioner Goosby asked what happened to the state organization 
that was supposed to be put together. 

Commissioner Fleishell responded that nothing ever happened. He said 
he talked last week to the President of the L.A. Commission about 
reviving the idea. 

Mr. Turpen said that there seems to be a definite lack of interest on 
the part of an awful lot of people in Southern California, including 
airport directors. He said that SFO is not in a position to wage a 
statewide war if we do not have the cooperation of the other airports 
involved. 

Commissioner Fleishell noted that SFO was the only airport who 
opposed the idea of limiting small claims for noise suits yet Mr. 
Robinson introduced the bill in Sacramento and got it passed. He 
felt we should be doing more. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked, in reference to SB 556, if staff 
could incorporate into the resolution the fact that we have 
approached the FAA relative to these matters and they have said they 
need more information. She agreed with Commissioner Fleishell that 
we might need to demonstrate to the state and to the Governor that we 
have done something. 

Mr. Turpen said it was his intent to include a copy of Mr. 
Garibaldi's opinion and the FAA submission in transmission of these 
matters. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said that if we highlight the point it might 
work. She said that someone needs to understand that there is a 
difference between what the Governor thinks and what the situation 
really is. 



Minutes, April 2, 1985, Page 10 



H. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

The following item was unanimously adopted. 

5. South Terminal Tenant Improvements - 

Approval of Design (Host International, inc.) 

No. 85-0095 Resolution approving schematic designs 

of various food and beverage 
facilities to be constructed by Host 
International, Inc. in remodeled South 
Terminal complex. 

Mr. Turpen said that during reconstruction of the South Terminal Host 
International intends to construct a number of South Terminal 
facilities concentrating initially on Boarding Areas A and B. He 
explained that Boarding Area A is the old International Rotunda; 
Boarding Area B is the area currently occupied by Western, 
Continental, TWA and Alaska. He said that Host is projecting a 
number of facilities and has renderings of those facilities available 
for the Commission's review. He told the Commission that there will 
be a major restaurant in the South Terminal replacing the former 
International Room in the Central Terminal. In addition, there will 
be a fast food outlet. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked if Mr. Freidman approved the plan. 

Mr. Turpen said he has. 

Commissioner Goosby asked where the new dining room will be located. 

Mr. Art Spring, Host International, said that the main restaurant 
facilities are located in the area that is shaded in pink (pointing 
to the renditions) and adjacent to that is an entirely new cocktail 
lounge which replaces the present Ishi bar. Mr. Spring then 
described the restaurant. 

Mr. Spring said that the total project will cost in excess of $8 
million. The designs range from a first-class dining room down to 
and including an employees' cafeteria which will be located on the 
mezzenine level over the Western Air Lines ticket counter. He said 
that the designs include everything with the exception of Boarding 
Area C which will be the last phase of the remodeling and a separate 
presentation to the Commission. Those designs have not yet been 
reviewed with the staff or Mr. Freidman. 

Commissioner Bernstein said that he and Mrs. Kadish had lunch with 
Howard Varner and discussed the Oyster Bar and Ice Cream Parlor. He 
said that Host agreed, at that time, that the Oyster Bar would have 
the same quality and quantity of food as Swans and the ice cream 
parlor would serve a national brand, like Hagen Daz. He said he has 
found that the ice cream brand has been switched. Commissioner 
Bernstein said he will personally pay for a test of the brand that 
was originally served and the brand that is now served. He asked why 
the brand was changed and why staff was oblivious to it. 

Mr. Spring responded that at the time Host put the ice cream facility 
together the concept was to require a product that would be 
differentiated from other ice creams sold in the market. Host's 
investigation at the time revealed that Frugen Gladje, a prime 
competitor of Hagen Daz, was an appropriate selection. He said there 
were extensive discussions with his staff and the Commission staff as 
to whether that was, in fact, an appropriate selection. 



Minutes, April 2, 1985, Page 11 



Mr. Spring said that there are a number of high quality ice creams in 
San Francisco and those companies wanted the opportunity to have 
their product on the Airport. It was Host's feeling at the time that 
the Frugen Gladje achieved the desired goals. 

Mr. Spring said Host used that brand in about 10 different airports. 
He said that they began experiencing a series of product quality 
control and delivery problems. These problems brought them to the 
conclusion that there were too many headaches for what they were 
getting with respect to identification of the product. Frugen Gladje 
was removed from all of their airport distributions and Host went 
into local markets and attempted to find what was recognized as, if 
not the best, one of the best locally produced premium quality ice 
creams available. In San Francisco that decision resulted in the 
selection of Buds. 

Commissioner Bernstein said that one of the ice creams manufactured 
locally won a national contest. However, when you start turning a 
local product into a national product and you start adding shelf life 
it does effect quality and quality control. He agreed with Mr. 
Varner that we should have the very best ice cream. He said that if 
Bud's tests out he would apologize to Mr. Spring for his comments but 
if it does not test out he would raise a lot of hell. 

Mr. Spring responded that if the intent is a premium product he 
predicted that Bud's will test out very well. He said he would be 
delighted to participate in but not influence the test and that Host 
would be glad to pay for it. 

Commission Goosby stated that he would be happy to influence the 
test. He felt Buds is a good ice cream. 

Commissioner Bernstein said he did not mean to imply that Buds was 
not a good ice cream, he simply stated that his agreement with Mr. 
Varner was to have the best ice cream and their is a difference 
between good and best. 

Mr. Spring volunteered to put the test together with staff and 
reiterated his offer to have Host pay for it. 

Mr. Spring, in returning to the discussion on the South Terminal, 
said the boards would be made available for the Commission to review 
them in detail after the meeting. He said that in his professional 
judgment the series of facilities in the South Terminal will not only 
be the best of any of the three San Francisco terminals, but will be 
unrivaled in any airport in the United States or that he has ever 
seen in the international market. Mr. Spring said this was an 
expensive undertaking but one with which he felt the Commission would 
be extremely pleased. 

Commissioner Bernstein said that physically most of the Host outlets 
are extremely satisfactory. He thanked Mr. Spring for his 
presentation. 



Items 6, 7, and 8 were put over. 

6. Automobile Service Station Lease - Authorization to Bid 

Resolution approving contract 
documents for automobile service 
station lease and authorization to bid, 



Minutes, April 2, 1985, Page 12 



Mr. Turpen said that the lease was for an initial five-year term with 
certain options in the Commission. He said that the Airport is 
presently involved in a land use plan and there has been some 
conversation as to whether the long-term location of the service 
station should be on the entry roadway at the Airport or in an 
alternate location. He felt that the five-year term will offer staff 
flexibility should the master plan indicate a location other than 
that presently occupied by the service station. 

Mr. Turpen recommended bidding the item. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked why "percent" was changed to "fixed 
amount ." 

Angela Gittens, Deputy Director of Business and Finance, said that 
staff felt we were in a poor market. She said that the market for 
service stations has changed over the years and staff is concerned 
with trying to get more than one bid for this item. Staff is trying 
to be much more flexible with this item than they have been with 
those items that are in a seller's market. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked if, other than the dropping of the 
price, there was a difference between this lease and the lease that 
was executed some years ago. 

Ms. Gittens responded that the major difference is that the previous 

lease was at 24 percent of gross. Basically it updates for all 

standard lease provisions and it requires three types of fuel which 
the other lease did not. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked who is responsible for the $250,000 to 
remove the tanks. 

Ms. Gittens responded that the present operator has to remove the 
tanks he has in the ground. But, the new operator must reline the 
tanks. She said that at least one needs to be replaced; the other 
two might be able to get by with just relining. 

Commissioner Goosby said that the lease should be clear cut in this 
regard. 

Mr. Turpen recommended bidding the item. If it appears not to be the 
type of situation that is economical for bidders he felt that will be 
reflected in the bidding. 

Commissioner Goosby asked what the rationale was for setting a 
870,000 minimum. He said Chevron was paying the City approximately 
$500,000 in yearly rent based on 24 percent of gross. 

Ms. Gittens responded that was as of last year. Chevron is currently 
on a month-to-month permit and is paying the Airport $60,000 a year 
as a flat f.ee for the continuation period. 

Commissioner Goosby said he was trying to reconcile a minimum of 
870,000 with a 8500,000 history. 

Ms. Gittens responded that that Chevron was unwilling to extend at 
anything near that. She said staff indicated to the Commission, as 
they were trying to negotiate the extension, that if Chevron were 
willing to come through with an extension for $250,000 staff would 
recommend it. Chevron was not even willing to do that. Staff met 
with the consultant the Commission recommended prior to the first 
pre-bid conference and he suggested a low percentage, starting with 



Minutes, April 2, 1985, Page 13 



10 percent, then down to 3 percent. Ms. Gittens said there was no 
interest at that point. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if there was a gallonage clause in the 
lease. 

Ms. Gittens said that bidders would be bidding a flat rate not a 
cents-per-gallon. She said that it is typical to have a gallonage 
clause and staff included it in documents that went to pre-bid. She 
explained that at the two pre-bid conferences that were held it was 
the unanimous feeling of the potential bidders, (there were only 3 
major companies present) that they have a flat rate. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that having represented a number of 
service stations he has never seen a service station lease that 
didn't have a minimum rate against gallonage. He said he would vote 
no on this item. 

Ms. Gittens said that the original proposal was 3 cents per gallon 
which would have come out to a minimum of about 860,000. If the 
other items are included it would come out to a minimum of about 
$70,000 based on the gallonage they have been running for the past 
several years. 

Commissioner Bernstein said he does not know of a gas station lease 
that does not include a gallonage clause. 

Ms. Gittens stated that she spoke to Reed Redwine, the consultant 
recommended by the Commission, and he indicated that it was 
surprising to him because the cents-per-gallon was typical. He 
suggested that because of the 57 0,000 minimum we probably would not 
do any better with a gallonage clause. She said that Mr. Redwine 
told her that there probably was not that much additional marketing a 
new operator or even Chevron could do and that we probably would not 
lose anything by going to a flat rate. 

Mr. Turpen responded that if it is the Commission's wish staff will 
include the gallonage clause. He said staff will talk to the 
consultant about the price per gallon. If the Commission has some 
suggestions staff will be glad to entertain them. If that amount is 
not sufficient it will be amended as the Commission wishes. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis assumed that if the garage had been standing 
in its present state for more than a year 1984 would be indicative of 
the useage of the gas station based on the amount of traffic entering 
and leaving the Airport. 

Ms. Gittens stated that useage of the gas station has been declining 
over the past several years. Last year the station sold about 1.8 
million gallons. 

Commissioner Goosby said they had paid $500,000 rent. 

Ms. Gittens said that amount of rent was based on gross receipts and 
gas this time last year was about $1.40. 

Commissioner Goosby said he could not reconcile a S70,000 minimum 
when Chevron paid $500,000 in the previous year. He asked that staff 
come back with a cents per gallon clause or percentage of gross to 
give the Airport some protection. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis wondered why Chevron did not want the 
operation if they are doing that much business. 



Minutes, April 2, 1985, Page 14 



Ms. Gittens responded that Chevron does want it but at the right 
price. 

Commissioner Goosby thought that Chevron was trying to talk the 
Airport into making a sweetheart deal. 

Mr. Turpen said that if the Commission preferred staff would raise 
the minimum and bid the contract that way to see what type of 
response is received. 



7. Valet Parking - Rate Increase 

Memorandum and resolution recommending 
to raise the valet fee from $16 to $17 
effective June, 1985. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if the operator could choose to lower his 
price in an attempt to try and increase his business, while 
guaranteeing the Airport the break even point. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the Airport determines the price. He said 
that the Airports Commission adopted a policy that states that the 
valet operation will break even. He said it was suggested at the 
last meeting that the price could either go up to cover costs and be 
consistent with Airports Commission policy, or, the policy could be 
waived for a trial period and the price could be lowered to see if 
additional useage of the service could stimulated. The Airports 
Commission asked staff to come back with a break-even price. The 
Commission could, if it wishes, approve a $10 charge to see what 
happens. 

Commissioner Bernstein agreed with Commissioner Goosby. He said a 
study should be done to include how much the Airport collects in the 
garage by virture of the valet parking. He suggested that if we did 
not have valet parking passengers might take limousines or taxicabs 
to the Airport . 

Commissioners Tsougarakis and Goosby both agreed that they would be 
in favor of a study to lower the rate to $10. 

Mr. Turpen informed the Commission that staff did a survey on valet 
parking when it first came up two or three years ago. One of the 
things the survey reflected was that bussiness people prefer valet 
parking as a safety factor over and above convenience. He said that 
passengers still prefer valet parking or would take a bus or cab over 
the alternative of parking their cars overnight in the general garage. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said she found valet parking convenient when 
she is running late. 

Mr. Turpen said that most airports have dropped valet parking. 

Commissioner Goosby said that the valet parking operator should 
consider a two-month trial at a lower rate. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis commented that this might have ramifications 
on the garage contract which will soon come up for renewal. 



Minutes, April 2, 1985, Page 15 



Mc. Sheldon Fein, Assistant Deputy Director of Landside Operations, 
explained that the garage bid will include both the taxicab and the 
valet operations as part of the garage contract. However, the 
specifications will indicate that those two items can be taken out or 
separated from the contract at any time. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said that if you plan to look into improving 
the service or running a test, this is the time to do it. 

Mr. Turpen said that the Airport sets the rate and reimburses the 
garage operator for his expenses. He explained that at the end of 
the month the garage operator logs his expenses with the Airport, 
which includes the cost of valet. He said that the garage, in 
effect, subsidizes valet parking. 

Commissioners Goosby and Tsougarakis agreed that the Airport should 
not subsidize valet parking. 

Mr. Turpen stated that in accordance with previous suggestions from 
Commissioner Bernstein the staff had introduced various cost cutting 
measures, including reducing the number of vans and employees, in an 
attempt to maintain the expenses at a lower level. He said that in 
spite of these cuts our costs have continually increased. 



8. Financial Services Lease - Authorization of Pre-Bid Conference 

Resolution approving lease 
specifications and authorizing a 
pre-bid conference for the Financial 
Services lease. 

Commission Tsougarakis requested permission to abstain from voting on 
this item. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked why savings and loans have been included, 

Ms. Gittens said she could not respond to the rationale five or six 
years ago but as the memo to the Commission indicated staff is 
looking for certain kinds of services and savings and loans can 
perform those services. 

Commissioner Bernstein thought he would have a conflict of interest 
with the inclusion of savings and loans. 

Mr. Garibaldi asked Commissioner Bernstein to give him the details 
after the meeting and he would advise him as to whether or not a 
conflict of interest exists. 

Mr. Turpen said that at the time the item was first bid Citicorp was 
just coming into California. He said that possibly at the time this 
was first bid savings and loans, based on the law, could not provide 
the services staff wanted provided at the Airport. He said that the 
law has since changed dramatically. 

Mr. Turpen said the item would have to be put over for lack of a 
quorum. 



Minutes, April 2, 1985, Page 16 



The following items were unanimously adopted. 

9. Lease of Hosiery and Related Gifts/Authorization to Receive Bids 

No. 85-0096 Resolution approving leasehold 

specifications and authorizing 
Director to receive bids for the lease 
of hosiery and related gifts in the 
North Terminal. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked how much in gross revenue staff feels 
this concession will generate. 

Ms. Gittens responded that staff feels it will generate approximately 
$250,000 in gross revenue. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked what the rental would be. 

Ms. Gittens responded that the minimum rental will be $40,000. 



10. Authorization to Receive Bids for Lease of "Forget-Me-Not" Shop in 
the North Terminal Building 

No. 85-0097 Resolution approving leasehold 

specifications and authorizing 
Director to receive bids for the lease 
of "Forget-Me-Not" Shop in the North 
Terminal building. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked how much business staff anticipates this 
concession will do. 

Ms. Gittens responded that it is anticipated that this concession 
will do approximately $500,000; the minimum required is $100,000. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if items 9, 10 and 11 were small business 
set asides. 

Ms. Gittens responded that Hosiery and Related Gifts and the Crab and 
Seafood Kiosks were small business set asides but the Forget-Me-Not 
Shop is not. 



11. Authorization to Receive Bids for Lease of Crab and Seafood Kiosks in 
the North Terminal Building 

No. 85-0098 Resolution approving leasehold 

specifications and authorizing 
Director to receive bids for. the lease 
of crab and seafood kiosks in the 
North Terminal Building. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked what the minimum would be. 

Ms. Gittens responded that the minimum would be $65,000. 

Commissioner Goosby asked why staff was requiring a live tank. 



Minutes, April 2, 1985, Page 17 



Ms. Gittens responded that staff felt it would enhance the appeal and 
attractiveness of the store. Staff wanted this in the original lease 
but felt it would be too expensive. Since that time it was 
discovered that the cost would only be about $2,000 - $3,000. 

Ms. Gittens said that in the previous operation the water was drained 
into a bathroom sink which was determined to be unhealthy and 
unpleasant. The $2,000-53,000 will provide for their own outfall. 

Commissioner Fleishell suggested that the lease contain a provision 
to keep the tank clean. 



Commissioner Goosby said that in 1982 the Commission adopted a small 
business definition calling for 8500,000 for an individual or 
$2-million for a joint venture. He said that the Commission might 
want to consider raising the 8500,000 minimum to 8750,000 or 
$l-million. 

Commissioner Goosby said it was his understanding that in some of the 
discussions on the South Terminal Principal Concessionaire and other 
leases that the small business policy will eliminate bidders grossing 
$l-million. He did not think the definition should complicate the 
Airport's efforts to reach the City's goal of 30 percent minority 
participation. 

Commissioner Goosby said that he would not be averse to developing 
strong minority businessmen. He said that if a minority businessman 
is grossing $2-million a year he had difficulty in not allowing that 
individual to bid on a concession on the grounds that he is getting 
too big for a minority business. 

Ms. Gittens explained that Commissioner Goosby is referring to the 
South Terminal Principal concession bid where staff said that 
subcontractors have to be small businesses. She said there are at 
least two minority firms that would not qualify as small businessmen; 
they would have to bid either as a prime or joint venturer. She said 
that there were no restrictions made on the joint venture. 

Commissioner Goosby said he did not recall the Commission approving a 
requirement of small businessmen as subcontractors for the South 
Terminal Principal Concession Lease. 

Commissioner Bernstein said that any store doing $l-million a year is 
not a small business. 

Ms. Gittens said the Commission will receive a summary of the prebid 
conference with staff recommendations later on in the week. She said 
that some of the items will be left open, such as this one, as a 
basic philosophical decision of the Commission. 



12. Rental Credit to Host International, Inc. 

No. 85-0099 Resolution approving rental credit to 

Host International, Inc. for 
improvements done in the International 
(Central) Terminal pursuant to 
Resolution No. 83-0114. 



Minutes, April 2, 1985, Page 18 



In response to a request from Commissioner Bernstein for 
clarification on this item Mr. Yuen stated that when the Airport 
decided to add the control tower to the International Terminal the 
structural beams and columns necessary to support the tower went 
through Host facilities. Staff decided that instead of having the 
City remodel the interior of those facilities we would have Host do 
it under their own contract when they renovate the restaurants. Mr. 
Yuen said Host could do the work faster, cheaper and the quality 
would be better with their own renovation. 

Mr. Yuen explained that in 1985 the Commission gave their approval to 
drop the restaurant and that is why the rental credit has dropped 
from $300,000 to $79,000. 

Commission Fleishell asked why $79,000 was spent on a facility that 
we decided not to restore. 

Mr. Yuen responded that $43,000 was for life safety items such as 
fire sprinklers, fire alarms and smoke detectors in addition to some 
design fees. 



Mr. Turpen added that the tower was not a par 
terminal design. The tower was to go in the 
of $9-million. He explained that the FAA dec 
space for the tower. Mr. Turpen said that al 
was cheaper, after the design change was made 
beams would have to go through the restaurant 
seismic bracing necessary for the new tower, 
result of that action. Mr. Turpen said they 
was made to put the tower on top of the Centr 
would be an impact upon the restaurant. 



t of the original 
garage at an expenditure 
ided they needed more 
though this alternative 
it was discovered that 
in order to provide the 
This $70,000 is the 
knew when the decision 
al Terminal that there 



13. Award of Airport Contract No. 1493 

Overlay & Reconstruct Taxiway "A" at Boarding Area "A" 



No. 85-0100 



Resolution awarding Contract No. 1493 
to W. G. Lewis, Inc., in the amount of 
$383,995.00. 



Eight bids were received on February 
21, 1985 ranging from $383,995.00 to 
$452,375.00. 



I. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

The following items were unanimously adopted. 

14. Declaration of Emergency - Water Lines Repair 
Airport Contract No. 1640 



No. 85-0101 



Proposed resolution declaring the 
existence of an emergency in the 
failure of a water main near Taxiway 



Minutes, April 2, 1985, Page 19 



"S" , and a fire main at Plot 41; 
directing the Director of Airports to 
effect the necessary repairs and 
requesting the Controller to certify 
funds needed to effect such repairs. 

Water lines repairs - $70,000.00. 



15. Award of Airport Contract No. 
Emergency Fencing Repair 

No. 85-0102 



1585R 



Resolution awarding Contract No. 1585R 
to Oakland Fence Company, Inc., in the 
amount of $25,722.44. 



Two bids were received on March 11, 
1985 ranging from $25,722.44 to 
$47,016.00. 



16. 



Bid Call - Airport Contract No, 
Paving the Center of Garage 



1568 



No. 85-0103 



Resolution approving the scope, budget 
and schedule for Airport Contract No. 
1568 and authorizing the Director of 
Airports to call for bids when ready. 
The purpose of the contract is to pave 
the center area of the garage to 
provide parking for approximately 80 
taxicabs. 



Contract time is 60 calendar days. 

Commissioner Goosby asked that since they will now be in the center 
of the garage will the taxicabs snarl up traffic during exiting. 

Mr. Fein responded that the entrance and exit to the garage will 
remain in the same locations. He said that instead of storing 
taxicabs in the garage with other autos they will now be in a 
separate area. This will give the Airport additional space for the 
public and will separate the public operation from the taxicab 
operation. 

Commissioner Goosby said that this new location would enable the 
Airport to separate the management responsibility for taxicabs from 
the management of the garage operation if the Airport so desired. 



17. 



Bid Call - Airport Contract No. 1514 

International Terminal New Janitor Sinks and Booster Heaters 



No. 85-0104 



Resolution approving the scope, budget 
and schedule for Airport Contract No. 
1514, and authorizing the Director of 
Airports to call for bids when ready. 



The construction schedule is 55 
calendar days. 



Minutes, April 2, 1985, Page 20 



18. SFO Shuttle Bus Service Agreement No. 68252, Modification No. 3 

No. 85-0105 Resolution approving an increase in 

SFO shuttle bus service hourly rate, 
reflecting periodic increases during 
1984 and Union Agreement wage 
increases effective January 1, 1985, 
and payment of such increases 
retroactive from March 1, 1984 through 
December 31, 1984 and for the period 
January 1, 1985 through March 31, 1985. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked what effect would the increase in the 
hourly rate have on the budget. 

Mr. Fein explained that the approximate cost, an increase of $260 a 
day, or $80,000 a year, had been included in the new budget for the 
entire year. 



19. Estension of Time for Jordan/Avent Associates Contract 
No. 85-0106 



20. Request for Approval of Travel/Training for Airports Commission 
Representatives 

No. 85-0107 



J. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission. 



K. TRAILING CALENDAR: 

There was no discussion of trailing calendar items. 



ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 10:10 A.M. to go into closed session. 



Jl 



J^an Caramatti 
Commission Secretary 



Minutes, April 2, 1985, Page 21 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




MINUTES 



APRIL 16, 1985 



DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

WILLIAM K. COBLENTZ 

Vice-President 

DR. Z.L. GOOSBY 

J. EDWARD FLEISHELL 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 

LOUIS A.TURPEIM 

Director of Airports 

San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

April 16, 1985 



Calendar 


Agenda 




Section 


Item 


Title 


A. 




CALL TO ORDER 


B. 




ROLL CALL: 


C. 




ADOPTION OF M: 



Resolution 
Number 



Page 

3 
3 



March 19, 1985 



85-0118 



SPECIAL ITEMS: 



S.F.I. A. Police Officer 
of the Year Award for 
1984 



85-0117 



3-4 



E. 



DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

2. Valet Parking - Status Report 

3. Free Baggage Carts in Customs: 
Week 5 Report 

4. Status Report on the 
Peninsula Mass Transit 
Study 

ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 



4-5 



5-6 
6-7 



Financial Services Lease - 
Authorization of Pre-Bid 
Conference 



85-0116 



7-8 



Award of Airport Limousine 
Service Lease 



85-0108 



South Terminal Principal 
Concession Lease - Authoriza- 
tion to Bid 



85-0109 



8-14 



Lease for Sunglasses Kiosks 
in the North Terminal 



85-0110 



14-15 



Award of Contract 1508 
Glass Windscreens at Inter- 
national Terminal and 
Connectors 



85-0111 



15 



Minutes, April 16, 1985, Page 1 



Calendar 
Section 



Agenda 
Item 



Title 



Resolution 

Number Page 



H. 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 



10. 



11. 



12. 



Resolution Correcting Typo- 
graphical Error in Resolution 
No. 85-0075 Adopted by Com- 
mission on March 19, 1985 85-0112 

Bid Call - Airport Contract 

No. 1638, Emergency Pavement 

Repairs (1985-86) 85-0113 

Bid Call - Airport Contract 

No. 1631, Replacement of 

10-Inch Effluent Line at 

Industrial Waste Treatment 

Plant 85-0114 



15 



15 



15-16 



13. 



I. 
J. 
L. 



Request for Approval of 
Travel/Training for Airports 
Commission Representatives 

CORRESPONDENCE: 

TRAILING CALENDAR: 

ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO 
CLOSED SESSION: 



85-0115 



16 
17 
17 

17 



Minutes, April 16, 1985, Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

April 16, 1985 



CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:00 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



B. ROLL CALL: 

Present; 



Absent i 



Commissioners Morris Bernstein, 
William K. Coblentz, 
Z. L. Goosby, 
Athena Tsougarakis 

J. Edward Fleishell 



C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The minutes of the meeting of March 19, 1985 were adopted by order of the 
Commission President. 

No. 85-0118 



D. SPECIAL ITEM: 

The following item was unanimously adopted. 
1. S.F.I. A. Police Officer of the Year Award for 1984 



No. 85-0117 



Resolution naming David Ross as 
S.F.I. A. police Officer of the year 
for 1984. 



Minutes, April 16, 1985, Page 3 



Jason Yuen, Acting Director of Airports, congratulated Officer David 
Ross on winning the award and commended him on his excellent 
performance and dedication to duty. 

Commissioner Bernstein said that Officer Ross typifies and 
exemplifies the department. He thanked him for his efforts and said 
the occasion was a rewarding one for all. 



E. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

2. Valet Parking - Status Report 

Status report on valet operations and 
survey questionnaire. 

Mr. Yuen asked Sheldon Fein, Assistant Deputy Director for Landside 
Operations, to give a brief summary on the status of the valet 
parking operation. 

Mr. Fein said that as a result of negotiations that have been 
conducted with the unions and employees of the valet operation he 
believes staff has come up with a cost savings program that will 
allow the Airport to continue the valet operation at its present cost 
and breakeven. He said he would like to continue the program for the 
next six months and survey the valet users to determine those 
operational items that can be changed allowing the operation to 
reduce costs and perhaps attract additional patronage. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked what the changes are that will reduce 
the costs by 40 percent. 

Mr. Fein responded that the van service which transfers passengers 
from the garage to the terminal is primarily half the cost. He said 
that the valet operation keeps an employee on duty 24 hours a day to 
transfer passengers by van to the terminals however a good number of 
the people using valet walk from the valet area through the tunnel 
over to the terminal. Elimination of that service would reduce the 
cost of the operation from $16 to $10. He felt that with that cost 
savings people using valet might be willing to forego the van service. 



3. Free Baggage Carts in Customs: Week 5 Report 

Report on summary of five weeks of 
trial period for free baggage carts in 
Customs. 

Mr. Yuen said that this is the regular report on the trial of free 
baggage carts in tne Customs area. He explained that the trial shows 
that for every two passengers one free cart is given away. He said 
that the operation has been going very well and we have been able to 
meet the demand for carts even during the busiest hours. 



Minutes, April 16, 1985, Page 4 



Commissioner Goosby asked what the Mayor's concerns were. 

Angela Gittens, Deputy Director for Business & Finance, said that the 
Mayor was concerned about those passengers who did not have money, 
either American or foreign currency, and would not be able to 
purchase a cart. Ms. Gittens said that she could assure the Mayor 
that the system is currently set up to provide a free cart in the 
event a passenger has no money, or exchange foreign currency in the 
event a passenger does not have American currency. She said that the 
Mayor felt that under those conditions she could not see that it was 
really worth spending $500,000 to provide free carts to everyone. 

Commissioner Bernstein said that he, too, was at the meeting with the 
Mayor and she objected to the apparent cost of the operation. 

Commissioner Goosby said that Smarte Carte has tried to have an 
attendant in Customs at all times to provide foreign currency 
exchange and he was not satisfied with the reasons as to why it did 
not work. 

Ms. Gittens replied that the Airport had put Citicorp in Customs to 
exchange foreign currency but Customs asked them to leave. She said 
that Smarte Carte always has an attendant present to make change. 
She said they were also exchanging foreign currency after Citicorp 
was removed. Ms. Gittens felt this should be tried again because in 
addition to the need for change for carts passengers also need 
American currency to pay customs. She explained that right now 
passengers have to leave their baggage in Customs, go across to the 
foreign exchange facility and then return to Customs. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis thought that something should be 
incorporated into the financial services lease. 

Ms. Gittens said that this was not a problem with Citicorp; it was a 
problem with Customs. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if that problem had been resolved. 

Ms. Gittens responded that although staff has not tried again she 
thought it could be resolved. 



4. Status Report on the Peninsula Mass Transit Study 

Status Report on Peninsula Mass 
Transit Study looking into rail 
improvements on the Peninsula being 
conducted by the Metropolitan 
Transportation Commission. 

Mr. Yuen explained that this was a summary of the Peninsula Mass 
Transit Study previously sent to the Commission. 

Mr. Fein said that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) 
hired a consulting firm to do studies which will include benefit cost 
analyses of eight different options of transportation systems on the 
Peninsula. This consultant's report is based on their findings of 
the cost benefits of each system. 

Mr. Fein explained that MTC holds public hearings on their reports. 
The MTC staff reviews the report and goes back to the Commission. 
This process enables the MTC staff to narrow down their study to two 
or three of the main areas of interest. Further studies are then 
made on those particular areas. 



Minutes, April 16, 1985, Page 5 



Mr. Fein said that an additional $270-million would be needed to 
extend BART from the West of Bayshore into the garage. He also asked 
MTC to come up with a cost estimate for a people-mover system to 
carry passengers to the terminals in the event BART remained West of 
Bayshore; that estimate was $150-million. The consultant has 
recommended that a bus service be provided between the West of 
Bayshore and the terminals and that the Airport run the bus service. 

Mr. Fein added that there will be an additional six to nine months 
for detailed engineering studies of the three options that MTC wants 
to pursue. The final report won't be available for another year. He 
said that City agencies receive copies of these studies and staff 
discusses each study with those agencies. 

Commissioner Goosby felt that City agencies should begin preliminary 
study and planning on how to use that land. Those agencies could 
then suggest changes or raise concerns to the MTC about how their 
plans would impact what the City wants to do with that land. 

Mr. Fein said that the City is kept up to date and there is a City 
study group composed of the Real Estate Department, the Airport, Muni 
Railway, and City Planning. 

Mr. Yuen said that this is a part of the master planning and Howard 
Freidman, who is doing the Master Plan, is working closely with these 
people. He said that staff is also coming up with a proposal for the 
land West of Bayshore and we will merge the two. 

Commissioner Goosby said that he was not aware that the Airport was 
coming up with a plan. It was his understanding that the West of 
Bayshore property was excluded from the Master Plan. 

Mr. Yuen said that it was included. He said that the property is 
going to be transfered to the City but because of the close proximity 
and potential impact to the Airport we should be involved. 

Commissioner Goosby said he assumed that it would be handled by the 
City Real Estate Department. 

Mr. Yuen replied that the Airport has not yet officially transferred 
the property even though the Commission has authorized the Director 
to do so. We are holding off until we first decide what we want to 
do with the property. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked to receive another report prior to the 
next meeting so that the Commission could input for the public 
hearing, if appropriate. 



F. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

Commissioner Bernstein said he believed that compensatory time should be 
investigated and studied to see if there could be a resolution to the 
problem. He said he could understand certain classifications, such as 
plumbers, policemen, carpenters, and secretaries earning compensatory time 
but not executives or departments like the Art Department or Business and 
Finance. Commissioner Bernstein asked for an interpretation of the rules 
from Mr. Garibaldi. 



Minutes, April 16, 1985, Page 6 



Mr. Yuen responded that he would pass Commissioner Bernstein's concerns on 
to Mr. Turpen. 

Commissioner Cobientz said that staff should also look at the consistency 
with other departments of City government. 



Mr. Yuen said staff would provide a full report on procedures that the 
Airport follows in this respect. 



G. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

The following items were unanimously adopted. Commissioner Tsougarakis 
was recused from voting on Item #5. 

5. Financial Services Lease - Authorization of Pre-Bid Conference 

No. 85-0116 Resolution approving lease 

specifications and authorizing a 
pre-bid conference for the Financial 
Services Lease. 

Mr. Yuen said this item requests approval of the specifications for 
tne financial services lease and authorizes staff to hold a pre-bid 
conference. 

Commissioner Cobientz felt that the Airport should provide multiple 
ATM services. He said that the Versateller that he uses is linked to 
a plus system wnich is a consortium of banks. He said that two or 
three ATM services would offer broad coverage and be helpful to 
people who come to the Airport. He felt that it was very important. 

Ms. Gittens said that staff intended to bid out several ATMs in 
addition to the bank that wins this particular lease. She said that 
space has been set aside in the South Terminal for a financial 
services area which will include ATMs. 

Commissioner Cobientz suggested that the wording "ATM services 
sponsored by multiple financial service institutions would be 
preferred" be used. 

Ms. Gittens said the staff had considered, in terms of the 
specifications, requiring a minimum level of cardholders so that we 
make sure we blanket as much potential passenger participation as 
possible. 

Commissioner Goosby said the lease specifications should also provide 
a booth in the Customs area, pending approval by Customs. 

Ms. Gittens suggested doing that through the foreign currency lease 
rather than through the financial services lease. 

Commissioner Cobientz asked if most airports have just a single 
financial service area. 



Minutes, April 16, 1985, Page 7 



Ms. Gittens responded that there are only about five airports that 
have banks but some may have a separate foreign exchange, like Miami, 



Commissioner CoDlentz left the meeting at the call of this item and 
was absent for its vote. 

6. Award of Airport Limousine Service Lease 

No. 85-0108 Resolution awarding Airport Limousine 

Service Lease to Associated Limousine 
Operators of San Francisco. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if staff was satisfied that Associated 
Limousine would get the requisite permits. 

Ms. Gittens said they were. 



There were two votes on the following item. The first vote 
unaimously approved the specifications, as amended, with the 
exception as to the amount of money to be spent for capital 
improvements. The second vote approved the specifications solely 
witn regard to tne amount of capital improvements. Commissioner 
Tsougarakis cast the only dissenting vote on this portion. 
Commissioner Coblentz returned during the discussion of this item and 
was present for its vote. 

7. South Terminal Principal Concession Lease - Authorization to Bid 

No. 85-0109 Resolution approving contract 

documents for Principal Concession 
Lease and Agreement for Retail 
Merchandising Sales in the South 
Terminal Building and authorization to 
bid. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked Mr. Gary Hahn and Mr. Tom McLaughlin, to 
address the Commission. 

Mr. Gary Hann, Vice President and General Manager of the San 
Francisco Retail Operations of Duty Free Shoppers, introduced 
Mr. McLaughlin, Manager of Business Development for Duty Free 
Shoppers. Mr. Hahn said Mr. Turpen and his management staff did a 
very professional job in preparing the document. Duty Free's input 
and the input of other prospective concessionaires was solicited and 
seriously considered at the pre-bid meeting and subsequent sessions. 

Mr. McLaughlin said he wanted to discuss four issues that he felt 
were important. The first item he commented on in the proposed lease 
is on page 22, section 701 dealing with the minimum level of 
leasehold improvements required in the development of facilities in 
the South Terminal. He said that Duty Free believes that $150 per 
square foot is too high even though they have spent that much or more 
in the development of facilities in the Central and North Terminals. 
He explained that in the Central Terminal Duty Free was trying to 
develop a gateway-type of operation. The facilities in that terminal 
had to have a certain ambience and look to them. The costs in the 
North Terminal escalated higher than anticipated due to the short 
amount of time they had to complete the facilities plus the extensive 
amount of demolition that was involved. He said that these 
situations don't exist in the South Terminal. The South Terminal's 
square footage, if done at $150 a square foot would result in an 
investment of about $1.8-million. He said that Duty Dree felt that 
combined with the financing costs, the investory and the staffing 
costs that are connected with the number of stores and the amount of 

Minutes, April 16, 1985, Page 8 



area would make the concession less appealing financially than it 
ought to be to sponsor good bidding. He proposed that a $125 per 
square foot minimum investment be established. That would mean 
$300,000 less in required capital improvements. He believed that 
there are adequate protections already in the lease, such as the 
Design Review Committee, to insure that the right kind of design is 
done. Mr. McLaughlin felt that $125 per square foot is enough to do 
a first class type facility and the reduction can make a big 
difference in the financial appeal of the lease. 

The second item Mr. McLaughlin brought up is on page 18, section 5.02 
and deals with concession fees. He said Duty Free would like to 
propose a two-tiered concession fee as opposed to the existing 
proposed 20 percent across the board. He said that would mean 15 
percent of gross on tne newsstand and bookstore related items and 20 
percent of gross on all other items. 

Mr. McLaughlin said that the passenger mix in the South Terminal will 
be primarily commuters and short haul traffic. These passengers 
traditionally buy heavily in newsstand, sundry, and bookshop-types of 
items. He said it is clear from the language in the lease that the 
intent is to develop a very Droad assortment and wide merchandise 
selections. He explained that there is not much margin in bookshop, 
newsstand and sundry-type items and he felt that consideration should 
be given in those areas in order to promote a broader assortment of 
merchandise. Mr. McLaughlin felt that given the gross margin of the 
items and the apparent desire for the selections, he felt it might be 
reasonable to look at a two-tiered structure. He said that this is 
done in other airports such as Ft. Lauderdale, Washington and Oakland. 

Commissioner Coblentz asked what was being charged in the newsstands 
in the North Terminal. 

Mr. McLaughlin responded 20 percent. He felt that the mix of the 
newsstand, books and sundries will be disproportionately high which 
drives down the margin for the concessionaire. 

Mr. Hahn said the third item was on the sublease requirement. He 
recommended a 25 percent sublease requirement which is currently the 
practice in the Central and North Terminals news, gift concessions. 
He said that overall, to a principal concessionaire, the South 
Terminal offers less appeal financially than the Central or North 
Terminals. He felt tnat the 25 percent level makes the concession 
offering more viable. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked for clarification of Mr. Hahn's 

statement. 

Mr. Hahn explained that this had to do with the minority 
participation. He said that in the North Terminal it is 15 percent 
for MBE and 10 percent for WBE, and, in the Central Terminal, it is 
25 percent of the space divided up with MBE, SBE and WBE. 

Mr. Hahn said the fourth item was the chewing gum issue. He felt 
that chewing gum should be included in the approved product list 
without the rider that states "subject to Commission right to 
exercise prohibition at a later date." Their early projections 
indicate that the winning concessionaire could generate approximately 
$145,000 in gum sales in the first year. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked how much it would cost to clean up the 
gum. 



Minutes, April 16, 1985, Page 9 



Commissioner Coblentz said he was the first to raise the question 
about chewing gum and the cost of cleaning and maintenance. He said 
that the argument is twofold: the loss of revenues to the 
concessionaire and the desire of the public to have chewing gum when 
they travel on planes. He said that the question could be raised as 
to why the airlines don't supply chewing gum to their passengers. 

Commissioner Coblentz said you must look at the cost versus the 
income. He said there has been a dichotomy of input on this 
Commission but he does not want to foreclose the right to raise the 
question again on chewing gum. 

Commissioner Goosby agreed with Commissioner Coblentz' desire to 
maintain the Airport's flexibility. 

Mr. Hahn said that as a prospective concessionaire his concern is 
that if gum is permitted and then later on withdrawn that there would 
be some adjustment formula that would allow them to appropriately 
reduce the guarantee, recognizing the loss of the revenue from that 
product. 

Commissioner Coblentz said he would not be against that, subject to 
arbitration. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said it could be subject to a relative 
percentage of loss of revenue. 

Commissioner Bernstein said he didn't see how you could enforce a 
prohibition against chewing gum. People bring it in. 

Commissioner Coblentz said that was not the same as selling it on the 
Airport. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked how much it costs the Airport to clean 
up chewing gum from the carpet. 

Dennis Bouey, Deputy Director of Facilities, Operations and 
Maintenance, said it was close to six figures. He felt that more 
important than the amount was the esthetic impact on the carpet. He 
said it takes a lot of manpower to remove the gum and their best 
efforts never manage to remove it all. 

Mr. Hahn pointed out that the Phoenix Airport at one time prohibited 
tne sale of chewing gum and had so many complaints that they are now 
selling it again. 

Commissioner Coblentz then commented on the language in the lease 
which precludes intra-company transfers. He said that is a standard 
part of any lease. 

Ms. Gittens said that the issue here was that, except for 
architectural fees, the concessionaire could not include 
intra-company charges in counting up the $150 per square foot capital 
investment. 

Commissioner Coblentz, referring to number 19, said these were 
consignments. 

Ms. Gittens responded that was subject to approval. 

Commissioner Coblentz said he did not think they need approval. If 
it's in the company they are primarily liable. 



Minutes, April 16, 1985, Page 10 



Commissioner Goosby asked for clarification. 

Commissioner Coblentz explained that if the lessee has the concession 

and they give it to a subsidiary, as long as the lessee is primarily 

liable on the lease anyway and the subsidiary is there you don't need 
any consent. 

Commissioner Bernstein said he did not object to the request to 
reduce the cost of f ixturization from $150 to $120. 

Ms. Gittens said that in the International Terminal $167 was spent. 

Mr. Hahn said that Duty Free spent about $170 in the North Terminal 
which included a lot of demolition. 

Commissioner Coblentz said that the architectural review by Mr. Yuen 
and Mr. Freidman should be sufficient. 

Ms. Gittens said staff is counting on an outfit like Duty Free which 
has a lot of experience at San Francisco International Airport; they 
know what we want, they have very high standards and spend a lot of 
money. She felt that setting a dollar limit clues the potential 
concessionaire into the kinds of standards we have before they get to 
the design review. She said that staff could lower the amount to 
$125 but not include intra-company architectural engineering. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked how staff arrived at $150. Macy's 
spends about $40 per square foot. 

Mr. Yuen said Duty Free spent $165 in the Central Terminal. 

Mr. Hahn said there are a lot of facilities, physical locations that 
have to be done in the South Terminal. He said that means there are 
going to be a lot of overhead expenses that you don't have in a 
central facility where you have economy of scale. 

Ms. Gittens said she would like to change the specifications today 
and asked if it was to be $125 with no allowance for intra-company 
architectural engineering fees. 

Mr. Yuen said he thought it would be simpler for bookkeeping purposes 
to exclude the architectural fees and the interdepartmental staff 

time and that kind of cost. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if Duty Free would have to spend $125 with 
the architectural fees to be over and above that amount. 

Mr. Yuen responded that $125 would be just the construction and 
fixture fees and would not include architectural fees. 

Commissioner Goosby complimented staff on the survey they did so 
expeditiously and efficiently, and Duty Free on the great success 
they have given this operation and the integrity with which they have 
attempted to carry out the spirit of the lease. 

Commissioner Bernstein said the next point was 15 percent gross on 
the sundries. 

Commissioner Coblentz said that TWA, Western and Continental were not 
commuter lines. 

Commissioner Goosby said there are other airlines that are going to 
carry passengers beyond a commute distance. 



Minutes, April 16, 1985, Page 11 



Mr. Hahn said that Air Cal was also thinking of moving to the South 
Terminal. 

Commissioner Coblentz said that Air Cal and Alaska are very small but 
TWA and Western are very substantial tenants. 

Mr. McLaughlin said he thought that the commuter lines accounted for 
about 40 percent of the total passenger movement for departures. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked what the 15 percent will do to the 
overall mark-up. He asked if the price would be lowered. 

Mr. Hann said that Duty Free would continue to set their prices based 
on the market basket that is indicated in the lease and the prices 
would be slightly lower. 

Mr. McLaughlin said that books and newspapers, for example, are sold 
at cover price. He said that the sundries area is generally within 
the neighborhood of an 18 percent margin going up to a 10 plus 10 
with rebate up to a 20. Sundries can be as low as 18, 20 to 25 
percent. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked if Duty Free could guarantee that 
books and magazines would be sold at the cover price. 

Mr. McLaughlin responded that the lease states that those items must 
be sold at cover price. 

Commissioner Bernstein said he would be in favor of lowering the 
rental if the prices were lowered. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis felt that the point Duty Free was trying to 
make was reasonable. 

Ms. Gittens responded that that fact can be reflected in the bid 

itself. She said that bidders know what we know in terms of the 

projected character of that terminal and that should be reflected in 
what they think they can make. 

Mr. McLaughlin said Duty Free did consider that and it can be done 

but felt it might be disadvantageous to the Airport to do it that 

way. It gives you a lower number to start in as a bid guaranteed 
number . 

Commissioner Coblentz said he was worried about being whipsawed 
between various concessionaires. He said that the Airport would be 
making an allowance in this instance because of commuters and 
wondered what the next allowance would be for. He said he does not 
necessarily believe in consistency but the Airport could be put in a 
peculiar position. 

Commissioner Goosby agreed with Commissioner Coblentz saying it could 
compromise the Airport's position with the airlines. 

Ms. Gittens said that the Airport has had trouble in the past with a 
multi-tiered system of percentages. We were under arbitration and 
had to get our lawyers to try and settle the case with another 
concessionaire. She said this starts to invite trouble and is a 
compelling reason not to enter into it. 

Mr. Yuen added that in the future when airlines are relocated or when 
an airline's traffic changes, for example, if United Air Lines 
increases their commuter traffic, we would have a problem. 



Minutes, April 16, 1985, Page 12 



Commissioner Coblentz suggested that staff keep the percentage rates 
as they are. 

Commissioner Goosby agreed. 

Commissioner Goosoy said he received a letter from Asian, Inc. and 
comments from the community that the Airport try to adhere to what 
the City policy is and set 30 percent MBE and 10 percent WBE. He 
said he did not think he had the votes on the Commission to do that 
and was prepared to agree to 20 percent and 10 percent. 

Commissioner Bernstein said he did not care what the number was as 
long as the Airport got capable merchants. 

Commissioner Coblentz said that he understood that under Section 1302 
the lessee agrees to put forth their best efforts for a 20 percent 
MBE and 10 percent WBE. He asked what it was for the Central 
Terminal. 

Ms. Gittens responded that the Central terminal was broken up into 
women, minority and small business. She believed it was 15 for MBE, 
5 for WBE and 5 for SBE for a total of 25 percent. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said that the Airport is slightly behind in 
its goals and we have to be realistic about that. 

Commissioner Goosby commented that that was the reason for granting 
this figure. The Airport is trying to raise it to more readily meet 
the new City goal. 

Ms. Gittens said that staff had agonized between the 40 percent that 
we would need to meet the ordinance, and the 25 percent of our past 
experience and came to the conclusion that 40 was too high. She said 
staff felt there would be a lot of resistance to 40 in this 
particular contract, but the 25 would not do enough for us. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked Mr. Hahn when Duty Free subleases space 
to a minority merchant does Duty Free do any training to help the 
merchant. 

Mr. Hahn responded that they did train. 

Commissioner Bernstein said that the program will not be successful 
until people are trained to be retailers. 

Commissioner Goosby said the Commission just received copies of a 
survey completed by staff indicating that Duty Free also co-signs 
notes with the merchants so that they can get loans from the bank in 
order to buy their merchandise. He said he was surprised at the 
amount of assistance the lessee receives from the principal 
concessionaire in the various aspects of setting up their 
businesses. 

Commissioner Coolentz said as he understood it staff was going to 
keep the provision on the rent payment, keep the terms on the best 
efforts on minority and WBE and reduce the construction cost to $125. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked if the $125 would include the 
architectural fees. 

Ms. Gittens responded that it would. 



Minutes, April 16, 1985, Page 13 



Commissioner Coblentz said there will be an architectural review by 
staff. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said she would go for $135. 

Commissioner Bernstein felt it was too high. 

Mr. Yuen said Skip Conrad indicated that they spent $189 two years 
ago in the Central terminal. 

Commissioner Coblentz moved that the specifications, with the 
exception as to the amount of money to be spent for capital 
improvements, and the amendments as suggested be approved. There was 
unanimous approval. 

Commissioner Coblentz then moved approval of the specifications 
solely with regard to the amount of capital improvement. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis cast the dissenting vote. 

Mr. Hahn thanked the Commission for allowing Duty Free to make their 

comments. 



Tne following item was adopted by a 3-1 vote with Commissioner 
Bernstein casting the dissenting vote. 

8. Lease for Sunglasses Kiosks in the North Terminal 

No. 85-0110 Resolution authorizing award of lease 

for sunglasses kiosks in the North 
Terminal. 

Commissioner Bernstein said that as a matter of principle the 
Commission should not pass anything that has one bid. He also said 
that the comment that the Airport is getting more money is misleading 
because a second branch is opening up. He said that the Airport is 
not getting more money for one branch. He suggested that they might 
be bid individually instead of as one. 

Mr. Yuen said that in all fairness to Ms. Gittens' staff they did put 
in a very strong effort to get more bids on this lease. He said that 
15 companies attended the pre-bid meeting but only one sent in a bid. 

Ms. Gittens said one reason is that sunglasses may not be that hot an 
item for people to try to get into. Secondly, she explained that it 
is coming at a time when we have quite a few bids coming up and to 
some extent we seem to be dealing with a fairly limited pool of 
concessionaires. She said there were no restrictions on this bid as 
to size, potential bidders seemed to be gearing up for the North 
Terminal bids and potential consideration as a subtenant in the 
principal concession bid. She said that this just had the least 
interest. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked how much business was done in that one 
location. 

Ms. Gittens responded that their gross was $130,000. 

Commissioner Bernstein said that $130,000 in sunglasses is really not 
a small business. 



Minutes, April 16, 1985, Page 14 



Ms. Gittens explained that this was not a small business set aside; 
it was open to any bidder. 

Commissioner Bernstein was astounded by the fact that there was only 
one bid. He asked if any additional effort was made to get other 
bids. 

Ms. Gittens said that the Airport's outreach officer contacted quite 
a few people, ranging from small to large concessionaires, and they 
indicated they were not interested in the concession. 



The following item was unanimously adopted. 

9. Award of Contract 1508 

Glass Windscreens at International Terminal and Connectors 

No. 85-0111 Resolution awarding contract to 

Cobbledick-Kibbe in the amount of 
$153,883. 

Mr. Yuen said several months ago the Commission authorized staff to 
solicit bids to install a glass windscreen in front of the 
International Terminal and the connectors. He recommended that the 
contract be awarded to the lowest bidder for $153,000. 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

The following items were unanimously adopted. 

10. Resolution Correcting Typographical Error in Resolution No. 85-0075 
Adopted by Commission on March 19, 1985 

No. 85-0112 Part of the contractor's name, Monroe 

Schneider Associates/328, Inc., was 
omitted in Resolution No. 85-0075. 



11. Bid Call - Airport Contract No. 1638 
Emergency Pavement Repairs (1985-86) 

No. 85-0113 Resolution approving the scope, budget 

and schedule for Airport Contract No. 
1638 and authorizing the Director of 
Airports to call for bids when ready. 
The purpose of the contract is to 
furnish emergency pavement repairs on 
an as-needed basis. 



12. Bid Call - Airport Contract No. 1631 

Replacement of 10-Inch Effluent Line at Industrial Waste Treatment 
Plant 

No. 85-0114 Resolution approving the scope, budget 

and schedule for Airport Contract No. 
1631 and authorizing the Director of 



Minutes, April 16, 1985, Page 15 



Airports to call for bids when ready. 
The purpose of the contract is to 
replace a section of 10-inch effluent 
line at the Industrial Waste Treatment 
Plant. 

Construction time is 30 calendar days. 



The Art Exhibition trip received unanimous approval. The other three 
trips were put over. 

13. Request for Approval of Travel/Training for Airports Commission 
Representatives 

No. 85-0115 

Commissioner Bernstein asked about the Tax Exempt Transportation 
Financing at Hilton Head. 

Ms. Gittens explained that it was a seminar being put on by Standard 
& Poors on tax exempt transportation financing. She said that the 
new federal rules on industrial development bonds have carved out 
certain kinds of financing from consideration under the new 
restrictions. It appears that certain transportion, including 
parking facilities at airports, are in this excluded category. If we 
could qualify for this excluded category we would not be subject to 
the arbitrage restrictions and some of the other restrictions that 
would apply on all of our other future financings. 

Commissioner Coblentz said that if some investment house was doing 
it, he would look on it with some skepticism, but Standard & Poors is 
objective and a non-underwriting agency. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if the Airport received this advice from 
our underwriters. 

Ms. Gittens responded that the Airport gets advice from our financial 
advisors and from our bond counsel. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked for clarification of the trips for art. 

Mr. Yuen said that he was not very knowledgeable about these trips 
and suggested the Commission wait for Mr. Turpen's return for a full 
explanation. 

Ms. Gittens noted that the first trip is scheduled for May 8 and the 
next Commission meeting is not until May 7. 

Commissioner Coblentz suggested that the Commission authorize the art 
exposition trip scheduled for May 8 and postpone the others. 

Ms. Gittens made a final point and said that the Commission might 
want to take into consideration the fact that discounts can be 
received if airline tickets are purchased 30 days in advance of 
departure. 

Commissioner Coblentz suggested making the reservations to be 
eligible for the discount and then, if need be, they could be 
cancelled later. 



Minutes, April 16, 1985, Page 16 



I. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion of correspondence, 



J. TRAILING CALENDAR: 

There was no discussion of trailing calendar items. 



ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 

Tnere being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 10:12 A.M. to go into closed session. 



Jean Caramatti 
Commission Secretary 

/ 



J 



Minutes, April 16, 1985, Page 17 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 



MINUTES 

^^ DOCUMENTS D 



MAY 7, 1985 
^ PU&L1C UBr 



DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

WILLIAM K. COBLENTZ 

Vice-President 

DR. Z.L. GOOSBY 

J. EDWARD FLEISHELL 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 

LOUIS A.TURPEIM 

Director of Airports 

San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

May 7, 1985 



Calendar 
Section 


Agenda 
Item 


Title 


A. 




CALL TO ORDER: 


B. 




ROLL CALL: 


C. 




ADOPTION OF MINUTES 



Resolution 
Number 



Page 



Regular Meeting of 
March 5 and Reconvened 
Meeting of March 7, 1985 
and Regular Meeting of 
April 2, 1985 



D. 




ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 


E. 




DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 




1. 


Free Baggage Carts in 
Customs - Final Report 




2. 


Progress Report on the 
1-380 Highway Construction 
Program 



3 MTC Recommendations - 
Peninsula Joint Powers 
Transit Agency 

4. Report on Preventive 
Maintenance System 

5. Report on Plot 50A 

Cargo Building Development 

ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

6. Authorization to Bid: 
Automobile Service Station 

7. Public Automobile Parking Facil- 
ities Operating Agreement: 
Approval of Operating Agreement 
and Authorization to Bid 



85-0121 



85-0122 



6 

6 

6-7 
7-9 

9-11 
11-16 



Minutes, May 7, 1985, Page 1 



Calendar Agenda Resolution 

Section Item Title Number Page 

8. Approval of Specification and 
Authorization of a Pre-Bid 
Conference: South Terminal 

Shoeshine Lease 85-0123 17 

9. Authorization of Pre-Bid 
Conference: Car Rental 

Service Concession 85-0124 17 

10. Resolutions Granting Option 85-0125 
to Extend Agreement for One 85-0126 
Year for Automobile Rental 85-0127 
Services 85-0128 

85-0129 17 



11. Airport Improvement Pro- 
gram (A. I. P. No. 5) 85-0130 18 

12. $85,000 Contract with the 
Museum Society, Fine Arts 

Museums 85-0131 18 

13. Transfer of $3,500 to the 

Art Commission 85-0132 18 

CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

14. Bid Call - Airport Contract 
No. 1649: Cable Replacement, 

Cables 12TRTA-A and 12BANB-1 85-0133 19 

15. Bid Call - Airport Contract 
No. 1650: Replacement of 4KV 
Power to Field Lighting 

Building 85-0134 19 

16. Bid Call - Airport Contract 
No. 1632: Emergency Roofing 

Repairs (1985-1986) 85-0135 19 

17. Award of Professional Ser- 
vices Agreement for South 
Terminal Aircraft Aprons, 
Phase III to J. Warren & 

Associates 85-0136 19-21 

18. Modification and Extension 
of Professional Services 
Agreement: Iver C. Larson 
and Associates, Professional 

Safety Consultants 85-0137 21 

19. Modification No. 7 to 
Agreement with Morrison & 

Foerster 85-0137 21 



Minutes, May 7, 1985, Page 2 



Calendar Agenda Resolution 

Section Item Title Number Page 



20. Approval of Sublease between 
Trans World Airlines, Inc. 
and Elsinore Aircraft 

Services, Inc. 85-0138 22 

21. Request for Approval of 
Travel /Training for Airports 

Commission Representatives 85-0139 22 

CORRESPONDENCE: 22 

ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO 

CLOSED SESSION: 22 



Minutes, May 7, 1985, Page 3 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

May 7, 1985 



A. CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:00 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



B. ROLL CALL: 



Present: 



Absent: 



Morris Bernstein 
William K. Coblentz 
Z. L. Goosby 
Athena Tsougarakis 

J. Edward Fleishell 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The minutes of the regular meeting of March 5, the reconvened meeting of 
7, 1985 and the regular meeting of April 2, 1985, were adopted by order of 
the Commission President. 

No. 85-0141 
No. 85-0142 



ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 



In accordance with Section 54957.1 of 
the Brown Act, Jean Caramattl ; 
Commission Secretary, announced 
unanimous adoption of Resolution No. 
85-0119 and 85-0120 regarding the 
settlement of litigated claims at the 
closed session of April 16, 1985. 



Minutes, May 7, 1985, Page 4 



E. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

1. Free Baggage Carts in Customs - Final Report 

Report on the conclusion of the 
two-month test period for free baggage 
carts in Customs. 

Lou Turpen, Director of Airports, told the Commission that 
approximately $88,000 was expended to provide free carts in Customs 
for a period of two months. He anticipates a minimum expenditure of 
$500,000 per year. He said this has been strenuously objected to by 
the airlines and, absent any other direction from the Commission, he 
will present a resolution at the next meeting directing staff to 
negotiate a five-year extension to the existing Smarte Carte lease. 
He said that the one change he would recommend is to go to an "L" 
shaped cart design. Mr. Turpen said that Smarte Carte does not have 
that design but they have committed to providing an alternate cart 
design for San Francisco. He recommended continuing the pay cart 
operation 1n Customs. 

Mr. Turpen said that it was staff's intent to include in the 
extension an option to pursue the concept of free carts in the 
arrivals area in the future. Smarte Carte will, as in the past, be 
required to make change in the arrivals area and to provide a free 
cart to those persons not having the means of securing a cart. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked if exclusion of the $500,000 related 
to the operational expense or the purchase of the carts. 

Mr. Turpen responded that it was more to the operational expense and 
to the anticipation that that cost would increase as our 
international volume increased. 

Commissioner Goosby said he did not think the Commission would 
approve the $500,000. He also said he wanted to be sure that the 
procedures by which Smarte Carte will make change and attempt to 
facilitate incoming international passengers receiving carts are 
worked out. He said he never had a clear understanding as to why the 
change making service did not work out before. 

Mr. Turpen said that historically Smarte Carte has made change in 
Customs and has also provided free carts if a passenger did not have 
money. He said the system worked very smoothly. 

Mr. Turpen said that the subject of free carts was brought up with 
the Mayor because she was interested in providing that service to 
incoming passengers. He felt obligated to bring it to the Mayor's 
attention during the budget process even though the Commission had 
previously voted to remove that expenditure from the budget. 



2. Progress Report on the 1-380 Highway Construction Program 

Mr. Turpen reported that the construction program is moving along 
very well. He said that work is presently being done on the 
southbound access to the Airport from 1-380. Cal trans will be 
working on the viaduct connecting the Airport with 1-380 In the 
northbound direction as well as the 1-380 interchange at the north 
end of the Airport. He said he will continue to keep the Commission 
advised. 



Minutes, May 7, 1985, Page 5 



3. MTC Recommendations - Peninsula Joint Powers Transit Agency 

Update of latest MTC actions on the 

SCR 74 - Peninsula Mass Transit Study, 

recommending the formation of a joint 
powers transit agency. 

Mr. Turpen said that this report is self-explanatory. He said it 
discusses the West of Bayshore property as it relates to a potential 
BART station. There has been a suggestion that the counties involved 
establish a joint exercise of powers agreement; San Francisco, 
SamTrans, and Santa Clara have all agreed to participate. He said 
this is the first step in looking at this regional transportation 
plan. Mr. Turpen said he will keep the Commission advised. 



4. Report on Preventive Maintenance System 

Report on the Airport's progress in 
replacing the old Preventive 
Maintenance System provided by 
Crothall Systems West and a new 
in-house system. 

Mr. Turpen said that this report was filed by Dennis Bouey, Deputy 
Director for Facilities, Operations and Maintenance, in response to 
the Commission's direction that staff assume responsibility for the 
preventive maintenance work order system. He said that the system is 
now being handled in-house using the proprietory software for 
Crothall systems. He said that according to Mr. Bouey' s report it 
appears to be working very well. 

Commissioner Goosby complimented staff on achieving this goal. 



5. Report on Plot 50A Cargo Building Development 

Report outlining the status of Plot 
50A lease negotiations with 
recommendations. 

Mr. Turpen summarized the report by saying that there were two 
candidates for Plot 50A: Northwest Airlines and Flying Tiger. 
Northwest is currently occupying the facility previously owned by 
Pan Am. Pan Am is a subtenant at that facility. 

Mr. Turpen said that after looking at the overall cargo demands at 
the Airport as well as each of the proposals from the carriers, it Is 
staff's recommendation to proceed with Flying Tiger, subject to 
certain conditions. He said that the recently announced potential 
sale of Pan Am's Pacific route rights and equipment to United-Air 
Lines forecasts a change in Pan Am's operations in San Francisco. If 
staff Is successful in relocating Pan Am's cargo operations this will 
allow Northwest enough room to operate within that cargo facility. 
At the same time, Flying Tiger's long planned development of Plot 50A 
can proceed. Mr. Turpen said that Flying Tiger has generously agreed 
to provide 40,000 square feet of cargo space to some other carrier, 
specified by the Airport, which would be of great assistance to the 
Airport 1n beginning the redevelopment and master planning of our 
cargo area. He said that there are a few details in the agreement to 
be worked out. He anticipated keeping Northwest in its existing 



Minutes, May 7, 1985, Page 6 



facility and hoped to find an alternate location for Pan Am's cargo 
operations as he expects them to be significantly reduced in the 
absence of any trans-Pacific operation. Mr. Turpen said he will come 
back to the Commission with a further report on this matter. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if Pan Am would keep their Hawaii route. 

Mr. Turpen said that was correct at this point. He has just received 
copies of the Pan American/United agreement and has sent the 
Commission selected portions of that agreement. He said that there 
are still a lot of questions to be asked. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked what the timing is on the development 
of Plot 50A. 

Mr. Turpen responded that if there is no objection from the 
Commission as to the basic recommendation, staff will sit down with 
Flying Tiger and require that they provide us with a detailed time 
phasing of their development of the parcel. He said that there is a 
current EIR on that parcel and it is simply a question of outlining 
the schedule for its development and relocation of their operations. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis thought that the Pan Am/United sale might 
hinge on this. 

Mr. Turpen did not think so, explaining that the sale is least a year 
away. He said they are only related in that Northwest's operations 
are increasing in San Francisco and they would like the additional 
cargo space. Pan American and Northwest, in sharing the facility, 
impose some difficult constraints on one another. He did not think 
these constraints were insurmountable in the near term and felt that 
both carriers could accommodate some interim inconvenience. 

Mr. Turpen said there are some other alternatives being explored 
which might provide some interim relief and staff will continue to 
work on them. He said there are two phases to this cargo 
development: One is the master plan, which relates to the major 
cargo area on the Airport, adjacent to the freeway. Plot 50A is on 
the backside of the Airport next to JAL and is predominantly a pure 
cargo operation, as opposed to a combination cargo operation where 
cargo is made up to go on passenger aircraft. The proximity to the 
freeway and terminals is advantageous in that regard. 



F. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

Commissioner Goosby stated that the Human Rights Commission has a small 
business definition, which addresses itself to retail outlets, not-just 
construction. He said that the City Attorney, in an opinion he made about 
three years ago, said that he could substantiate and support a set aside 
by this Commission, or any City Agency for small business. He assumed the 
City Attorney had some kind of definition. Commissioner Goosby felt that 
the figure being used was established four years ago and is outdated. He 
understood that staff is trying to develop a revised policy. He felt 
staff should check with the City Attorney and Human Rights Commission to 
try to come to a consensus on the definition. 



Minutes, May 7, 1985, Page 7 



Commissioner Goosby was bothered by the fact that the bid would go out 
this month without being straightened out. He assumed that the Commission 
agreed with him that their effort to involve minority, local and women 
businesses is a high priority but the size of the business should not get 
in the way of trying to implement the MBE and women ordinance. 

Commissioner Goosby said he has received several calls from people 
complaining that they would be eliminated as potential South Terminal 
sub-tenants because of the $500,000 figure. He said that HRC's definition 
is $2-mi 1 1 ion. 

Mr. Turpen said that at one of his first meetings as Airport Director in 
1981 staff put together the small business policy. He remembered how much 
trouble staff had wrestling with it at the time just trying to come up 
with the proper numbers. He said staff will be happy to coordinate their 
activities with HRC and the City Attorney and within 60 days will present 
a report to the Commission outlining each of their individual positions as 
well as their recommendations. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked if this would affect the South Terminal. 

Mr. Turpen said that although the South Terminal will be done in three 
phases he wanted to open the first phase, Boarding Area A, in time for the 
Thanksgiving Holidays. He explained that this is a little earlier than 
scheduled but felt that opening it before Thanksgiving was imperative. 
This meant that the concessions would be operating as well. Mr. Turpen 
did not wish to delay the South Terminal concession program which would be 
the result if the Commission put this over. 

Commissioner Goosby commented that the specifications cannot be altered 
once it goes out to bid. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked for a briefing after the meeting on how 
long the HRC has had their definition and if the Airport fell under their 
guidel ines. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if Dun & Bradstreet had been contacted. 

Ms. Gittens said staff had not contacted Dun & Bradstreet, however, they 
have reviewed the Small Business Administration policy. 

Commissioner Bernstein commented that Dun & Bradstreet had figures on 
every business in the United States. 

Mr. Turpen said there are two questions that need to be answered. First, 
staff can give the Commission a spread on the number of companies under 
$500,000, under $1 million, etc. Secondly, as on construction contracts, 
the Airport requires, through our principal concessionaires, a certain 
percentage of minority participation and women participation by percentage 
of square footage. The Airport has also required that those participants 
fall within the small business category. He said that there are two 
things at work here: first is the definition of a small business, which 
may be the same; and the second question is do we want to continue,, as new 
principal concessionaire opportunities come up, to require the small 
business piece. 

Commissioner Goosby said he did not recall voting on this and thought that 
1t just crept in. 

Mr. Turpen said he remembered that it was in the first one. 

Mr. Turpen said that staff will come back to the Commission with a 
definition. He said that after having made the decision on small 
business, the Commission must then decide whether or not to continue to 



Minutes, May 7, 1985, Page 8 



require a small business as part of our future principal concessionaires 

Commissioner Bernstein said Dun & Bradstreet would be a good source and 
suggested contacting them. 



G. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

The following item was unanimously adopted. 

6. Authorization to Bid: 

Automobile Service Station 

85-0121 Resolution approving contract 

documents for Automobile Service 
Station Lease and authorization to bid. 

Mr. Turpen said staff complied with the Commission request to include 
a 3 cents-per-gal Ion rental commission in the lease and also 
specified a rental as to other services, such as vending machine 
sales towing, automotive repairs, etc. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if staff had received a projection of what 
the 3 cents-per-gal Ion might mean in the way of revenue and what the 
projection was for the 10 percent on the accessory products and 
services. 

Ms. Gittens said that based on the last two years of the operation 
the 3 cents-per-gal Ion on the approximately 150,000 gallons pumped 
per month would come to about $54,000 a year. On the automotive 
accessory products, staff is assuming about $90,000 in gross sales 
for a rental to the Airport of approximately $9,000. For repair 
service, staff is assuming approximately $4,500 in rent to the 
Airport for $45,000 in gross. For towing, staff is assuming 50 tows, 
or approximately $800 a year to the Airport, bringing the total to 
$70,000. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked Ms. Gittens to reconcile the 24 percent 
formerly received with 10 percent. 

Ms. Gittens said that the original agreement was developed back in 
the sixties when the service station business was quite different. 
Chevron, at that time, had a very heavy interest in certain locations 
within San Francisco, including the Airport, and were willing to bid 
very high to get those locations. Staff has found, in the last two 
years, that business has changed. She said that the service station 
has not incited a great deal of interest at the 24 percent figure nor 
with the 3 cents-per-gal Ion figure. 

Commissioner Bernstein said he could understand that 24 percent on 
$1.50 is a lot more than 24 percent on 40 cents, or whatever the 
original price was which accounted for the inordinate rental, 
however, percentages remain constant and percentages of rentals are 
the same as they were 5 or 10 years ago. 

Commissioner Goosby said that last year, according to his notes, 
$500,000 was paid to the Airport In rent based on a straight 24 



Minutes, May 7, 1985, Page 9 



percent of gross. He asked if there has been a dramatic drop in 
their gross income since the $500,000 payment was made for 1983-84. 

Ms. Gittens responded that there has been a drop, although not a 
dramatic one, because gasoline prices have dropped. Last year, for 
example, they grossed $2-million and this year they are running about 
$1 .8-million. 

Commissioner Goosby said that when they grossed $2-million a year 
they paid $500,000 in rent. He asked if staff felt that was an 
exhorbitant rent and wanted it reduced. 

Ms. Gittens responded that Chevron has said that they are not willing 
to pay, nor is anyone else. As mentioned before she said we could go 
out to bid with a minimum of $500,000 and test the market. 

Commissioner Bernstein said that the Airport has nothing in the 
terminals at 10 percent. He said the Airport gets as high as 38 
percent, an amount he felt was outrageous. 

Mr. Turpen said he would defer to the experience of the Commission 
and would be happy to set the minimum at any number the Commission 
wanted. 

Commissioner Bernstein said that the percentage remains constant. 
The Airport received an inordinate rent at 24 percent against 
gasoline sold at 40 cents. When gasoline went to $1.40 it became 24 
percent of $1 .40. 

Mr. Turpen said that the Commission intentionally limited the service 
station to light repairs and will not be doing the repair services 
that they have done in the past. 

Commissioner Goosby commented that Chevron was not doing much heavy 
automotive repair work. He said he had made the point that if 
Chevron could find a way to neatly park the cars they should be 
allowed to repair anything they want to make money. He made the 
argument that the more the station makes the more the Airport will 
make. 

Mr. Turpen said that at 24 percent no one was interested, and no one 
would talk with us. He said staff modified the lease and made a 
recommendation. The Commission requested a gallonage fee and staff 
responded with a gallonage fee. He said he would establish a new 
minimum if the Commission wished or, if the Commission would like to 
test the market at $300,000, staff will put it out to bid and see how 
many bidders respond. He said that if no one submits a bid, staff 
will keep bidding it until one is received. Beyond that he did not 
know what else to do. 

Commissioner Bernstein felt that the advertising value of the sign at 
the Airport would be worth $55,000 a year. 

Commissioner Goosby felt that someone was getting a real windfall. 

Commissioner Coblentz said that when there was tremendous competition 
in the oil business, the gas station, in 1968, was meeting the 
measure of Standard Oil of California. He said that the station 
offers a tremendous convenience to the Airport. Staff solicited bids 
from all the major oil companies and, unfortunately, even Chevron was 
not Interested. He said you could talk all you want about the merits 
of the sign and the advantages of the location but he thought staff 



Minutes, May 7, 1985, Page 10 



had to put It out to bid as is. He said that if Chevron, Arco, or 
Texaco really want it they will bid higher. He thought a rent of 
$500,000 or $300,000 was wishful thinking. 

Commissioner Bernstein argued that the traffic flow in the Airport is 
constantly increasing. 

Commissioner Goosby referred back to the $500,000 rent paid to the 
Airport last year. 

Commissioner Coblentz pointed out that that rent was based on a 1968 
lease. 

Commissioner Goosby argued that they were able to pay it and stay in 
business. 

Mr. Turpen said the bid item was $70,000 minimum bid. He said that 
we could get very substantial bids. If we do not, the Commission 
always has the right to reject all bids. He added that the Airport 
is currently receiving $60,000. 

Commissioner Coblentz said that staff has been waiting since the end 
of last year and the Airport is not getting the rent it could be 
getting. He said that perhaps it could be $300,000, however, it 
might only be $70,000. 

Mr. Turpen suggested that staff find out. 

Commissioner Goosby said only competetive bidding will drive up the 
bid amount to what he hoped would be an honest return to the City. 
He said that if the oil companies are anywhere near collusion they 
will all stick close to $70,000. 

Commissioner Coblentz said that if there is any evidence of collusion 
the City and County of San Francisco would have a magnificent 
antitrust suit. He said that the bids are sealed and they can be 
rejected if the Commission feels it is not getting the proper amount. 

Commissioner Bernstein said he was only pointing out that the service 
station was formerly willing to pay 24 percent. He said that some of 
these other items are down to 10 percent and the Airport receives 
more than 10 percent on every other item sold at the Airport. He 
said he is willing to let it go out to bid to see what comes in, but 
unless a satisfactory bid is received and is in accordance with 
proper business methods he won't accept it. 

Commissioner Coblentz said that in his experience in representing a 
very substantial number of shopping centers, oftentimes a bid is 
received that is the bellweather of the center. The bid may not be 
as much as you would like but the concession is there as a 
convenience to the people who are in the center. 



The Commission was unanimously excused Commissioner Coblentz from voting 
on the fol lowing Item. 

7. Public Automobile Parking Facilities Operating Agreement: 

Approval of Operating Agreement and Authorization to Bid Operating 
Agreement 

No. 85-0122 Resolution to approve the Public 

Automobile Parking Facilities 



Minutes, May 7, 1985, Page 11 



Operating Agreement and to authorize 
putting said Operating Agreement out 
to bid. 

Commissioner Coblentz asked to be excused from voting inasmuch as one 
of the interested parties has been represented by his law firm. 

The Commission gave its unanimous approval. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked Dennis L. Roberts of International 
Business Services, Inc. in Washington D.C. if he wished to address 
the Commission. 

Mr. Roberts said he had a handout which he would leave with the 
Commission. He said that IBS was invited by the FAA several years 
ago to take over the management and operation of the automated 
parking facility at Dulles Airport. Their reaction at that time was 
that they were a high technology professional services firm and were 
not interested. They then took a much harder look at Dulles' needs 
and decided that most traditional parking companies could not 
accommodate those needs. He said they have been at Dulles for 
several years and are operating on a completely different plane. 

Mr. Roberts said there were three points he wanted to make. The 
first point had to do with the possibility of this contract being 
developed as a minority business set aside. The second point had to 
do with the selection process which they thought was antiquated, 
inappropriate and probably a blueprint for trouble. The third point 
was that unless the Airports Commission is willing to take very 
strong action to change the selection process the problems that he 
will identify will continue. 

Mr. Roberts said that the data his company received from the San 
Francisco Human Rights Commission indicates that in a community that 
is 50 percent minority, less than 2 percent of the contracts let 
city-wide were awarded to minority-owned firms. He said that IBS has 
some concerns about whether that is not at odds with existing 
ordinances and laws. Mr. Roberts said there is no way to get from 2 
percent to the 30 percent target unless some of the larger contracts 
are developed as minority business set asides. 

Mr. Roberts said that Airport staff has communicated to IBS that 
because of the size of this requirement this should not be developed 
as a minority business set aside. IBS believes that it is precisely 
because of the size of this requirement that this should be a 
minority business set aside. During the 1981-82 period IBS was told 
that almost $l-billion in prime contracts were let. If the City were 
to set a target of 30, 40 or 50 percent you would be talking about 
$300-mi 1 1 ion, $400-million or $500-million being awarded on a prime 
contract basis to minority owned firms. Mr. Roberts felt that this 
particular parking contract would be the perfect opportunity for a 
set aside. He made a strong recommendation that the Commission take 
action to cut through the nonsense and insist that this be developed 
as a minority business set aside. He felt that unless some action 
like that takes place the numbers won't be any better next year. 

The second point Mr. Roberts addressed was the selection process. He 
said that IBS has found that there are some assumptions being made in 
traditional parking management operations which are false. One of 
them is that the business of operating a parking facility at an 
airport, especially if it is automated, is pretty much a trivial, 
straight forward process, and not very different from what happens 
when you are buying pencils and ashtrays; you look for the cheapest 



Minutes, May 7, 1985, Page 12 



number. He said that airports across the country are moving away 
from the concept of concession contracts and moving towards 
management contracts. He said that the prequal ification 
questionnaire has only one question that addresses experience and 
that question addresses duration and extent. He said that the 
minority business certification questionnaire contains thirty-two 
questions to demonstrate minority ownership. He suggested that in 
the questionaire, contractors address technical and cost proposals. 
Mr. Roberts said that a process should be established to identify the 
most qualified contractor, not the one who is willing to offer the 
cheapest price. 

Mr. Roberts said that IBS talked to parking system consultants all 
across the country and found that there are companies who will hand 
in very low bids and then find other ways of making their money. The 
net result is ineffective management, revenue losses and potential 
embarrassment for the City. He argued that once the most qualified 
contractor is identified the price can then be negotiated. He felt 
that asking superficial questions about how long a contractor has 
been in business does not accomplish that. 

Mr. Roberts made the final point that the Airport is looking to 
computerization. He said that the Cerand organization has already 
developed the specifications to computerize the facility. He said 
that if staff thinks there are problems now, wait until the system is 
computerized. The Airport will wish it had taken a closer look at 
the qualifications of the contractor. He said there is a way to 
evaluate those qualifications. 

Commissioner Bernstein said that the Airport has certain guidelines 
and rules to follow. He suggested that if IBS is as qualified as Mr. 
Roberts has indicated there should be no problem, whether they are a 
minority or not. 

Mr. Roberts responded that his point was that if the contract was not 
a minority set aside then the selection process, as it currently 
exists, is not designed to identify the most qualified contractor. 

Commissioner Bernstein said he was not so certain. If staff can not 
find the most qualified contractor then we have a problem with the 
procedure and with staff. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked to hear Mr. Turpen's position on this 
item. 

Commissioner Goosby said that part of the prequal ification procedure 
is the requirement to fill out the questionnaire as well as the 
possibility of an interview to determine a bidders qualifications, 
familiarity with computerized equipment, how personnel problems would 
be handled, and the training of personnel to work the equipment. 

Commissioner Goosby agreed with Mr. Roberts on the minority set aside 
issue in that if the larger concessions are not opened up to a set 
aside procedure we will not approach our 30 percent goal. 

Commissioner Goosby commented that a prequal ifying question is 
inaccurate in that it requests experience in running a taxi lot. In 
fact, the Airport only requests that a bidder list any experience he 
may have. He said that most airports do not have the same type of 
operation SFO has and it would be unfair to a bidder who has airport 
experience to be penalized because they don't run the taxi operation. 



Minutes, May 7, 1985, Page 13 



Commissioner Goosby commented that the City Attorney was looking into 
a potential conflict of interest in the case of the same company 
owning Airporter and operating the taxi operation. This was supposed 
to be taken care of before the Airport Motor Coach Service Agreement 
went out to bid. 

Mr. Turpen said that the agreement is written so that we can remove 
the taxicabs at any time. He said this was simply a point of 
information for staff and has no bearing on whether or not a bid will 
be accepted. He said a clarifying statement to that effect could be 
added to the questionaire. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked Mr. Gerald Baker if he wished to address 
the Commission. 

Mr. Gerald Baker of Metropolitan Parking said he had written letters 
to the Commission and assumed they were received. His company 
operates De Anza parking located in Burlingame and he wished to 
protest the exclusion of bidders who operate within five miles of the 
Airport. He feels it is an arbitrary and unwarranted exclusion 
because, according to statements made by staff at the pre-bid 
conference, it assumes an improper act before an occurrence. He said 
that all the documents provide resolutions for this if it were to 
occur. Mr. Baker asked that this item be removed from the agreement. 

Ms. Gittens responded that the issue is to try to prevent abuse not 
develop penalties for abuse, like removing an operator. She said the 
five mile limit is primarily designed to avoid potential abuse that 
would be difficult for staff to catch. She explained that if there 
were nearby competing lots staff could be shared and efforts could be 
made to divert business. Ms. Gittens said she was not accusing 
anyone of being fraudulent but these situations could occur and would 
be very difficult for staff to detect. 

With respect to the MBE set aside, which is a policy decision for the 
Commission, Ms. Gittens said that the ordinance reflected the very 
poor past performance of the City in attracting minority and 
women-owned enterprises. She said that this is the reason the 
ordinance was passed and why we have 5 percent preferences for 
minorities and women. She thought that staff needed to test the 
ordinance further before going to set asides. 

Ms. Gittens said there are legal restrictions on the bidding process 
and thought it important to have as objective a process as possible 
due to the large and sensitive operation of the Airport. She felt 
staff would feel much more protected by a bidding process with strict 
qualification guidelines rather than a so-called negotiation process. 

Mr. Turpen said Ms. Gittens has effectively summarized the situation 
for the Commission. He said that the garage generates approximately 
20 percent of the overall revenue at the Airport and is a significant 
portion of the Airport's business. He said the garage has functioned 
extremely well in his tenure at the Airport and he felt that the 
present agreement and the method with which the garage 1s managed has 
proven to be extremely effective. He added that all of staffs 
reviews of the operation and the checks and balances that are in 
place have proven to be effective. 



Minutes, May 7, 1985, Page 14 



Mr. Turpen said that when he came before the Commission a few months 
ago and recommended proceding, with the full recognition that a 
computerized operation would be in place in the future, the 
Commission was supportive of that suggestion. He said some things 
have come before the Commission today in regard to suggestions, one 
of them is the process. Mr. Turpen said it was a sound process and 
he was comfortable with it. He did suggest that instead of a flat 
fee as the bid item, a percentage of gross be used. He felt that was 
consistent with some of the other activities at the Airport. He said 
it also recognizes that the garage rates will increase dramatically 
over time and he would like the figures to adjust, believing that it 
will cost more to operate as the business grows. 

Mr. Turpen said that in 1979 the garage was making about $10-mi 1 1 ion 
a year; it now makes $23-mi 1 1 ion a year. He said there are certain 
indirect costs, which are difficult to quantify, and the operator 
should be reimbursed proportionately instead of on a flat fee basis 
over a period of time. 

In response to the five mile rule, Mr. Turpen strongly recommended 
that the Commission maintain this limit. He was not suggesting there 
would be any intentional wrong-doing, he was simply saying that 
whenever two operations are very close together it becomes a simple 
matter to move employees from one location to another. He explained 
that this could complicate the bookkeeping because the Airport 
reimburses expenses through an identification of the number of 
persons working, the number of hours they work, and their presence at 
the garage. To allow a company which has a facility and an operation 
within 5 miles of the garage with a 24-hour operation is creating a 
potential problem. He said that the Airport can remove a company for 
that reason but staff wants to set up a business that is going to be 
viable and continue throughout the term of the lease rather than be 
put in a position of rebidding. 

Mr. Turpen said Ms. Gittens' comments on the MBE were accurate and he 
would not support an MBE set aside on the garage. He said the City 
has passed an ordinance which allows a 5 percent bid preference to 
minority firms as well as a 5 percent bid preference to local San 
Francisco firms. He said he could not speak for the City but the 
Airport is probably, by admission of the Human Rights Commission, a 
leading agency with respect to its commitment to minority business 
opportunity through contracting, retail concessions and the principal 
concessionaire. To take 20 percent and artificially limit the number 
of potential bidders would not be good management. He called the 
Commission's attention to the recent Airporter contract which is now 
in the process of being bid. The Commission was once again faced 
with the decision of whether or not to set aside. Mr. Turpen said 
that 20 to 25 persons attended the pre-bid conference. Assuming that 
one-third were qualified as minority-owned firms, that could reduce 
by two-thirds the available bidder pool and he did not think that was 
consistent with the Airport's public obligation for a facility the 
size of the Airport. He said that the programs currently in place 
recognize our minority obligation and the City's desire to increase 
minority participation. He feels the programs are excellent and 
staff is committed to continuing them. His concern was that in 
eliminating over half the bidders you are Impacting the competetive 
environment. 

Mr. Turpen recommended the agreement to the Commission amending the 
flat fee to a percentage of gross. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if staff had a figure in mind for the 
percentage. 



Minutes, May 7, 1985, Page 15 



Mr. Turpen responded that that would be the bid item. He reminded 
the Commission that they directed staff to annually review garage 
rates vis a vis other garages. If the rates increase, the operator 
of the garage should receive more in order to recover their indirect 
costs. 

Commissioner Bernstein felt the five mile limit was arbitrary and did 
not have a place in the contract. He said there is a remedy for 
wrong-doing. He argued that Host and Duty Free are not subject to a 
five-mile limit. He said that the facility is being used and people 
only go elsewhere if they feel the rates are too high or the garage 
is filled. 

Mr. Turpen said he understood and respected Commissioner Bernstein's 
point but still felt the five-mile limit was appropriate. Mr. Turpen 
said that if the Commission wanted to waive the five-mile limit there 
would be no problem but he did not want to be put in the position of 
trying to justify to the Commission why the Airport was reimbursing 
the operator for "alleged" transgressions. He said staff tries to 
establish all of our bids conscientiously and in a way that 
forecloses any possible problem. 

Commissioner Bernstein said he respects Mr. Turpen's thoughts but he 
does not want to ban anyone just because they have another operation. 

Mr. Turpen said that a Host facility off -Airport is a different story 
than a parking facility. The five mile limit was a concern because 
of economies that might be affected. He reiterated that staff is not 
suggesting an intent to be deceitful or to defraud the Airport, but 
just the fact that another facility is in close proximity where 
additional help could be found might suddently make the accounting 
become very difficult. He said that staff deals many times with 
allegations not facts and he was trying to foreclose anything like 
that from happening. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said it was almost mandating a worst case 
and perhaps we should give it a try. She felt the Commission was in 
agreement. 

Commissioner Goosby said he thought it flies in the face of staff's 
efforts to keep as large a bidding pool as possible because at least 
three potential bidders would be eliminated. 

Commissioner Goosby said the City Attorney has informed City 
departments that the Association of General Contractors is suing the 
City on the set aside issue and the case is now in the Court of 
Appeals. He said the City won the first round to keep the MBE 
ordinance valid so it can be enforced. The City Attorney said that 
in this stage of the arguments and with only six months into the 
operation it would weaken their legal case if we don't give the 
ordinance an opportunity to function without the set aside. He said 
that the 10 percent set aside is to be used for those departments 
that are having difficulty meeting their 30 percent qoals. He felt 
that the MBE ordinance should be carefully handled and protected in 
order to retain its validity through the court cases. He said the 
Airport will not reach 30 percent but is doing better than most 
departments and believed staff was making a good faith effort. At 
halfway point we are 8 percent MBE toward our 30 percent goal and 2 
percent WBE toward our 10 percent goal. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis moved the approval of the recommendation 
waiving the five-mile limit and including the percentage. 

The vote was unanimous. 



Minutes, May 7, 1985, Page 16 



The following item was unanimously adopted as amended. 

8. Approval of Specification and Authorization of a Pre-Bid Conference: 
South Terminal Shoeshine Lease 

No. 85-0123 Resolution approving the proposed 

lease specifications and authorizing 
staff to hold a prebid conference for 
the lease of shoeshine stand operation 
in the South Terminal building. 

Commissioner Bernstein felt that a $10,000 bid bond for a shoeshine 
concession was exhorbitant. 

Commissioner Coblentz suggested that the amount be reduced to $5,000. 

Ms. Gittens reminded the Commission that this item was for 
authorization for a pre-bid conference. Staff will elicit comments 
from participants and changes can be made at that point. 

Commissioner Coblentz responded that he thought the consensus of the 
Commission was that the bond was a bit high and recommended the 
amount be reduced to $5,000. 

Mr. Turpen said that staff will change the amount. 



The following items were unanimously adopted. 

9. Authorization of Pre-Bid Conference: 
Car Rental Service Concession 

No. 85-0124 Resolution approving specifications 

and authorizing Director to hold 
Pre-bid Conference for the operation 
of a sixth car rental service at San 
Francisco International Airport. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked if the terms were the same as the 
other five rental car leases. 

Ms. Gittens responded that the difference in the sixth rental car 
lease is that there is no land, so there will be no on-Airport 
vehicle faci 1 ity. 



10. Resolutions Granting Option to Extend Agreement for One Year for 
Automobile Rental Services 

Adoption of the attached five (5) 
resolutions approving the one year 
options to renew the following Rental 
Car Service Agreements: 



No. 85-0125 Hertz 

No. 85-0126 Avis 

No. 85-0127 National 

No. 85-0128 Dollar 

No. 85-0129 Budget 



Minutes, May 7, 1985, Page 17 



11. Airport Improvement Program (A. I. P. No. 5) 

No. 85-0130 Resolution approving Project 

Application for AIP Fund of 
$8-m1 1 1 ion and requesting Board of 
Supervisors to authorize filing of 
Project Application and to accept 
the resulting grant offer. 



12. $85,000 Contract with the Museum Society, Fine Arts Museums 

No. 85-0131 Contract for $85,000 with the Museum 

Society, Fine Arts Museums of San 
Francisco for the purpose of 
providing and implementing Temporary 
Exhibitions at San Francisco 
International Airport for the fiscal 
year 1985-1986. 

The following Item was unanimously adopted as amended. 

13. Transfer of $3,500 to the Art Commission 

No. 85-0132 Resolution authorizing the transfer 

of $3,500 to the Art Commission for 
award of maquette contracts to five 
artists selected as finalists for 
the tapestry at Boarding Area A and 
the sculpture at the west entrance 
of the South Terminal . 

Mr. Turpen said the amount was raised to $4,000. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked who keeps the maquettes. 

Mr. Yuen responded that the artist keeps the maquette after it has 
been reviewed. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if it was true that the Art Commission 
has paintings and other artwork on exhibition that belong to the 
Airports Commission. 

Commissioner Coblentz anticipated Commissioner Bernstein's question 
to be: Can we retrelve some of the pieces and make them part of a 
museum? He responded that Jason Yuen and Howard Freidman are working 
on it. 

Mr. Yuen said he and Mr. Friedman were working on a museum for the 
lounge. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if these were permanent loans. 

Commissioner Coblentz responded that they were not. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked what would happen if the Airport did 
not hook up with the Art Commission. 

Commissioner Coblentz said the Airport had to under the Charter. 



Minutes, May 7, 1985, Page 18 



H. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

Commissioner Coblentz moved the consent calendar with the exception of 
items 17 and 19. The consent items, including item 17, were unanimously 
adopted. Item 19 was put over. 

14. Bid Call - Airport Contract No. 1649: 

Cable Replacement, Cables 12TRTA-1 and 12BANB-1 

No. 85-0133 Resolution approving the scope, 

budget and schedule for Airport 
Contract No. 1649 and authorizing 
the Director of Airports to call for 
bids when ready. The purpose of the 
contract is to replace defective 
sections of 12000 volt Power Cables 
12TRTA-1 and 12BANB-1. 

Contract time is 180 calendar days. 



15. Bid Call - Airport Contract No. 1650: 

Repalcement of 4KV Power to Field Lighting Building 

No. 85-0134 Resolution approving the scope, 

budget and schedule for Airport 
Contract No. 1650 and authorizing 
the Director of Airports to call for 
bids when ready. 



The purpose of the contract is to 
provide an alternate 4KV source to 
Field Lighting Building. 

Contract time is 150 calendar days. 



16. Bid Call - Airport Contract No. 1632: 
Emergency Roofing Repairs (1985-1986) 

No. 85-0135 Resolution approving the scope, 

budget and schedule for Airport 
Contract No. 1632 and authorizing 
the Director of Airports to call for 
bids when ready. The purpose of the 
contract is to furnish emergency 
roofing repairs on an as-needed 
basis. 

Contract time is 365 calendar days. 



17. Award of Professional Services Agreement for South Terminal Aircraft 
Aprons, Phase III to J. Warren & Associates 

No. 85-0136 Award to J. Warren & Associates for 

basic fee of $334,000 (3.8% of 
construction costs) plus a budget of 
$206,000 for surveying, materials 



Minutes. May 7, 1985, Page 19 



testing, Inspection services, and 
authorized reimbursable costs. 
Total contract amount Is $540,000. 

Carol Isen of the Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 21, 
said It was their understanding that DMJM was getting about $100,000 
worth of this design contract for the apron work at pier "e" by joint 
venturing with John Warren & Associates of Oakland. The union 
objected to this part of the contract because apron work is the bread 
and butter for the Airport in-house engineering staff. Ms. Isen said 
this has been designated as a set aside contract because the Airport 
design section fell behind on their MBE/WBE goals. She said this 
work is normally done by in-house design staff, consisting of almost 
100 percent minority workers. Ms. Isen said she discussed this 
matter with Jason Yuen several weeks ago and was told that the reason 
for this was because there was a rush on this job. 

Ms. Isen said the union checked with their members to determine 
whether or not the work could be completed on schedule If done 
in-house and they were told that they were too busy. Ms. Isen said 
she did not think it was really a problem of the in-house staff being 
too busy, but a problem of administrative planning. She said that 
Airport management knew that this work had to be done and could have 
been planned for it. Instead, it became a set aside contract at a 
premium cost to the Airport. 

Ms. Isen added that this is going out as a Personal Services Contract 
and there would be no competitive bidding. She said it was her 
understanding that there were five contractors who interviewed for 
this job and out of the five there was only one minority business 
contractor, Fred Jordan, based in San Francisco, who could actually 
do this job by himself. She asked why the MBE who was going to joint 
venture with a big engineering firm is the one who got the contract. 

Mr. Yuen said this is not a joint venture. DMJM is a subcontractor 
but not a partner and receives roughly 18 percent of the total fee. 
He added that years ago Local 21 agreed that the South Terminal 
projects would be done by outside consultants and not by in-house 
staff. The simple reason for that is that we can not gear up for 
just one project of this size. 

Mr. Turpen added that the Airport had 133 engineers with only six 
officially on the rolls. When the North Terminal was being 
constructed they were on workorders, and bond funds. When the North 
Terminal finished there were to be six engineers left at the 
Airport. Mr. Turpen said that David Novodgrodsky came before the 
Commission several years ago and the Commission instructed Mr. Turpen 
to sit down with him and sort this thing out. He made an agreement 
with Mr. Novodgrodsky on how we would proceed with the full 
recognition of what the real situation was. That agreement, which 
was reached three or four years ago, guaranteed a certain dollar 
amount of work to the in-house staff. Since that time, at every 
opportunity, Local 21 has demanded that we hire more engineers, and 
that work be put here and there. 

Mr. Turpen said that to his knowledge the Airport has lived up to 
that agreement and the commitment to place sufficent funds in the 
budget to cover all those engineers who were on the Airport payroll 
at that time. He said he will not commit to rehire engineers or 
commit to fill vacancies. That is not his obligation as the Director 
of the Airport. He said an equitable and fair arrangement was made 
in 1981. 



Minutes, May 7, 1985, Page 20 



Commissioner Coblentz said that the Airport got into this with the 
knowledge that construction of the Airport was going to taper off. 
If the Airport had kept these inflated payrolls we would be in a very 
bad position. That is why the idea was to try to cut down and 
contract out as best we could. He said the Airport wants to help the 
private sector as well . 

Commissioner Goosby asked how many engineers in the design section 
were on the Airport payroll now. 

Dennis Bouey, Deputy Director of Facilities, Operations and 
Maintenance, responded that between draftsmen, engineers and 
architects the staff approximates 40 people. He added that initially 
when he arrived on the Airport his section was about eight years 
behind in its construction work; this summer they will be on time. 
He said that as part of that program, since they are on time, several 
projects that were given to Jason Yuen's group have been given back 
to his design section and they will be handling them. He said Jason 
has been very fair towards the in-house design section in terms of 
giving that work back. He said that work will be done in-house. 

Commissioner Coblentz asked what the timing phase was on the South 
Terminal aircraft apron paving. 

Mr. Yuen responded that construction has to start by the end of this 
year. He said there is no way you can gear up with the same staff; 
you not only have to hire personnel, you have to buy desks, supplies, 
etc. 

Mr. Turpen asked Dennis Bouey how many engineers had been laid off. 

Mr. Bouey responded that they had not laid off any engineers. 

Commissioner Goosby said engineers would have to be laid off if they 
were hired just for this project. 

Mr. Turpen said the bottom line was that we had a certain number of 
engineers on board. We would not layoff. We would fund enough work 
for our engineers to do in-house. He said that Mr. Bouey' s efforts 
have significantly enhanced our ability to get work done in-house. 
He said that was the deal and everyone was happy. He just wanted to 
point out that he is repeatedly being asked why he is not hiring more 
engineers. 



18. Modification and Extension of Professional Services Agreement: 
Iver C. Larson and Associates, Professional Safety Consultants 
Cost $21,500.00. 

No. 85-0137 



Item 19 was put over. 

19. Modification No. 7 to Agreement with Morrison & Foerster 

Resolution authorizing and approving 
modification of Agreement with 
Morrison & Foerster to extend term 
of Agreement from June 30, 1985 to 
June 30, 1986. 



Minutes, May 7, 1985, Page 21 



20. Approval of Sublease between Trans World Airlines, Inc. and Elsinore 
Aircraft Services, Inc. 

No. 85-0138 Resolution approving the sublease of 

a portion of TWA's air freight 
facility located on Plot 3 from 
Trans World Airlines, Inc. by 
Elsinore Aircraft Services, Inc. 



21. Request for Approval of Travel/Training for Airports Commission 
Representatives. 

No. 85-0139 



I. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion of correspondence. 



J. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 10:26 A.M. to go into closed session. 




Jefcn Caramatti 
)mmission Secretary 



Minutes, May 7, 1985, Page 22 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 



MINUTES 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

AUG 7 1985 



MAY 21, 1985 



DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

WILLIAM K. COBLENTZ 

Vice-President 

DR. Z.L. GOOSBY 

J. EDWARD FLEISHELL 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 

LOUIS A.TURPEIM 

Director of Airports 

San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

May 21, 1985 



Calen 
Secti 


dar 
on 


Agenda 
Item 


Title 


A. 






CALL TO ORDER: 


B. 






ROLL CALL: 


C. 






ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

Regular Meeting of 
April 16, 1985 



Resolution 

Number 



D. 

E. 

F. 



ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 

ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

TWA Transportation Services 
POLICY: 

1. Resolution for Naming of 
Airport Streets 

ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

2. Smarte Carte - Proposed 
Lease Option 

3. Approval of Specifications 
and Authorization to Bid 
Computerized Parking 
Control System 

4. Authorization to Award Lease 
of "Forget-Me-Not" Shop in 
North Terminal 

5. Resolution Awarding Lease 
for Hosiery and Related 
Gift Shop 

6. Authorization to Award Lease 
of Crab and Seafood Kiosks 
in North Terminal 

7. Authorization to Receive 
Bids for Lease of Enter- 
tainment Center/Video Game 
Room in the North Terminal 



85-0145 



85-0146 



85-0147 



85-0148 



85-0149 



85-0150 



85-0151 



85-0144 



Page 

3 
3 



Minutes, May 21 , 1985. Page 1 



Calendar Agenda Resolution 

Section Item Title Number Page 

8. Full-Service Baggage 

Storage Lease Specifications 85-0152 7 

9. Requesting Authorization to 
Proceed with Pre-BId Confer- 
ence for South Terminal 

Vending 85-0153 7-8 

10. Renewal 0p]t1on of Lease 
for Operation of Insurance 

Services at SFIA 85-0154 8 

H. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

11. Approval of Budget for 
Professional Services 
Contract Gerson/Overstreet, 

Amendment No. 2 - $60,000. 85-0155 8 

12. Final Modification and 
Close-out of Contract 1211 
FAA Facilities, 7th Fir. 

SFIA 85-0156 8 

13. Award of Contract 1369A 
Pavement Reconstruction 
Upper Level Road, South 

Terminal 85-0157 8 

14. Tenant Improvement: TWA 
Ground Operations Offices 
(T-2930-A), TWA Gate Hold- 
rooms - Phase 1 (T-2966) 85-0158 9 

15. Tenant Improvement: Western 
Airlines Inbound Baggage 
Conveyor System - Phase 2 

(T-2941A) 85-0159 9 

16. Request for Approval of 
Travel /Training for Air- 
ports Commission Reps. 85-0160 9 

I. CORRESPONDENCE: 

Ferry or Transfer of 

Non-Part 36 Compliant 

Aircraft 85-0161 9-10 

K. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO 

CLOSED SESSION: 10 



Minutes, May 21 , 1985, Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

May 21, 1985 



CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:00 A.M. In Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



B. ROLL CALL: 

Present: 



Commissioners Morris Bernstein, 

William K. Coblentz, 

Z. L. Goosby, 

3. Edward Fl ei she 1 1 , 

Athena Tsougarakis 



C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The Minutes of the regular meeting of April 16, 1985 were adopted by order 
of the Commission President. 

No. 85-0145 



ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 



In accordance with Section 54957.1 of 
the Brown Act, Jean Caramattl, 
Commission Secretary, announced 
unanimous adoption of Resolution No. 
85-0140 regarding the settlement of 
litigated claim with SFO Helicopter 
and 85-0143 regarding an agreement 
with Atari to mutually terminate the 
Atari Game Room leases in the 
International and North Terminals at 
the closed session of May 7, 1985. 



Minutes, May 21 , 1985, Page 3 



ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

Commissioner F1 ei she 1 1 said that efforts are being made by a private group 
to gain control of TWA. He said that although this Is not an Issue In 
which the Commission would normally become Involved, one alternative In 
gaining control would be to dismantle the airline. He said the result to 
the Airport would be the loss of a valued tenant and revenue. 

Commissioner Flelshell said that TWA has asked for hearings by the 
Department of Transportation to investigate the propriety and capability 
of this group to run an airline and to determine other factors relative to 
the public interest. He felt the Commission should support a move to 
request such an investigation by the Department of Transportation. 

Commissioner Fleishell moved the resolution prepared by staff with the 
recommendation that the name of the people Involved be eliminated. 

Commissioner Coblentz seconded the motion and the resolution was 
unanimously adopted. 

No. 85-0146 



F. POLICY: 

The following item was unanimously adopted as amended. 

1. Resolution for Naming of Airport Streets 

No. 85-0147 

Commissioner Coblentz asked that the second whereas clause be amended 
to read: "It is the intent of the Airports Commission to now 
identify some, 1f not all, Airport streets and roadways by name, 
rather than by letter and number..." 

Commissioner Goosby suggested that a general criteria should be 
established for naming streets. 

Commissioner Coblentz felt the person should be living and have made 
some contribution to the Airport. 

Commissioner Goosby felt that the contribution could be one made to 
the City and should not necessarily be limited to the Airport. He 
also suggested that names having worldwide recognition in the 
aviation field could be considered. 

Commissioner Goosby remembered that names had been submitted to the 
Director a couple of years ago and asked if those names were still 
aval lable. 

Mr. Turpen said they were. He said he would return to the Commission 
with a criteria the Commission can discuss and formalize. He said 
some of the former names submitted might not fit the criteria. 



Minutes, May 21, 1985, Page 4 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

The following item was put over. 

2. Smarte Carte - Proposed Lease Option 

Resolution to authorize the Director 
of Airports to enter lease renewal 
negotiations with Smarte Carte. 

Mr. Turpen said that staff accurately estimated that a "free" cart 
operation would cost about $500,000 to run. 

Mr. Turpen said that the specifications address many of the concerns 
raised by the Commission. He said that one of those concerns was the 
cart design. He felt the current cart was unacceptable and 
recommended going to the more common "L" shape. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked when that would happen. He said It was 
part of the original contract signed five years ago. 

Mr. Turpen responded that Smarte Carte's "L" shape design is really 
more a "U" shape design. He said that Smarte Carte is in the process 
of developing a new design. 

Mr. Turpen said that approval could be subject to a definite date 
established for the replacement of the cart. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked if staff could design the cart. 

Mr. Turpen responded that it was not a question of design but of 
production and installation. He suggested putting the item over for 
two weeks at which time he will present the Commission with a 
schedule. 

The Commission agreed. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if the provision to provide free carts to 
passengers unable to pay for them appeared in the present lease. 

Mr. Turpen responded that that was a point of contention between the 
Airport and Smarte Carte. 

Don Garibaldi, Airports General Counsel, said that Smarte Carte, 
prior to the free cart trial in Customs, was providing free carts to 
those passengers unable to pay. 

Mr. Turpen said this will be formalized in the agreement with a 
procedure. Failure to follow the procedure would place Smarte Carte 
in breach of their agreement. 

Commissioner Fleishell suggested the Airport retain the power to not 
only provide free carts but to bid another cart concession. 

Mr. Turpen responded that everything in this document has been 
confirmed by Smarte Carte and he would have to go back to them and 
confirm Commissioner Flei shell's proposal. 



Minutes, May 21 , 1985, Page 5 



The following items were unanimously adopted. 

3. Approval of Specifications and Authorization to Bid Computerized 
Parking Control System 

No. 85-0148 

Mr. Turpen said the only change from the previous documentation the 
Commission approved was in going back to one phase instead of two 
phases as provided for in the original specifications. He said that 
Autoscan's bonding company insisted on this as part of the new bid 
specifications. 



4. Authorization to Award Lease of "Forget-Me-Not" Shop In North Terminal 

No. 85-0149 Resolution awarding lease of 

"Forget-Me-Not" Shop in North Terminal 
to Candy-Mann, with a first year 
minimum annual guarantee bid of 
$109,750. 

Mr. Turpen said that items 4, 5 and 6 were related in that they were 
bids for North Terminal concessions. He said that paragraph two of 
his background memo to the Commission indicated the number of people 
staff attempted to contact in order to generate interest in these 
bidding opportunities. He said it was gratifying because the 
successful bidders of each of these concessions started out as MBE's 
and WBE's under the Airport's principal concessionaire concept under 
Duty Free. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis noted that the Seafood Kiosk wants to close 
right away and asked how long.it will take before it re-opens. 

Ms. Gittens responded that it will partially depend on whether the 
current operator will sell over their leasehold property. If they 
do, it can be done in a matter of a few weeks. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked if the Airport received the minimum or 
a percentage of gross. 

Ms. Gittens responded that the minimum was $50,000 and the Airport 
received about $75,000. 



5. Resolution Awarding Lease for Hosiery and Related Gifts Shop 

No. 85-0150 Resolution to award lease of Hosiery 

and Related Gifts Shop in North 
Terminal to Denetta Clayborne-Stafford 
with a first year minimum annual 
guarantee of $48,000. 



Minutes, May 21, 1985, Page 6 



6. Authorization to Award Lease of Crab and Seafood Kiosks 1n North 
Terminal 

No. 85-0151 Resolution awarding lease of Crab and 

Seafood Kiosks in the North Terminal 
to Angelina and Benny Tan, DBA Tan 
Enterprises, with a first year minimum 
annual guarantee bid of $77,770. 



7. Authorization to Receive Bids for Lease of Entertainment Center/Video 
Game Room in the North Terminal 

85-0144 Resolution approving leasehold 

specifications and authorizing 
Director to receive bids for the lease 
of Entertainment Center /Video Game 
Room In the North Terminal. 

Mr. Turpen explained that it is staff's Intention to bid the North 
Terminal Game Room as a small business set-aside. This Item simply 
requests authorization to go out to bid. 



The following Item was unanimously adopted as amended. 

8. Full-Service Baggage Storage Lease Specifications 

No. 85-0152 Resolution to approve the lease 

specifications for a full service 
baggage storage concession and to 
authorize staff to hold a prebid 
, conference. 

Mr. Turpen said the baggage storage area will be in the former Atari 
Game Room location in the upper level of the South Connector. He 
said it was originally anticipated for the lower level of the 
International Terminal but later thought that the connector would be 
more attractive. 

Commissioner Goosby felt this was a good way to combine services. 

Commissioner Fleishell felt that the dry cleaning pick-up and 
drop-off could be a separate concession. He said this was talked 
about several times in the past but staff did not feel it was a good 
idea. 

Mr. Turpen agreed with Commissioner Fleishell but he thought that a 
location outside the terminals might be better. 



The following items were unanimously adopted. 

9. Requesting Authorization to Proceed with Pre-Bid Conference for South 
Terminal Vending 

No. 85-0153 Authorization to proceed with pre-bid 

conference for South Terminal Vending 
Lease. 



Minutes, May 21 , 1985, Page 7 



Commissioner Flelshell asked how much the Airport earns annually. 

Mr. Turpen responded that It Is about $8,000. 

Commissioner Flelshell asked 1f staff considered not having the 
vending machines. 

Mr. Turpen responded that he considered It but found there was a 
demand. 



10. Renewal Option of Lease for Operation of Insurance Services at San 
Francisco International Airport 

No. 85-0154 Resolution authorizing a three-year 

option extension to Mercury 
International for the Lease for 
Operation of Insurance Services. 



H. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

The following items were unanimously adopted. 

11. Approval of Budget for Professional Services Contract 
Gerson/Overstreet, Amendment No. 2 - $60,000 

No. 85-0155 Resolution approving additional budget 

of $60,000 for Professional Services 
Contract between City and 
t. Gerson/Overstreet, Architect 
Consultant to provide basic services 
for the demolition of Pier 'e' and 
additional design services for Tunnels 
A & C. 



12. Final Modification and Close-Out of Contract 1211 
FAA Facilities, Seventh Floor, SFIA 

No. 85-0156 Final modification to close-out 

contract including adjustments to Bid 
Items and Force Account payments in 
accordance with City's Administrative 
Code. 



13. Award of Contract No. 1369-A 

Pavement Reconstruction Upper Level Road 
South Terminal 

No. 85-0157 Resolution awarding Contract 1369A to 

Grade-Way Construction in the amount 
of $278,665. 

Three bids were received on April 29, 
1985 ranging from $278,665 to $320,242. 



Minutes, May 21, 1985, Page 8 



14. Tenant Improvement: TWA Ground Operations Offices 
(T-2930-A), TWA Gate Holdrooms - Phase I (T-2966) 



No. 85-0158 



Remodeling of TWA's Ground Operations 
Offices and Gate Holdrooms - Phase 1 
on Boarding Area B. $200,000 - No 
cost to Airport. 



15. Tenant Improvement: Western Airlines Inbound Baggage Conveyor System 
Phase 2 (T-2941A) 



No. 85-0159 



Renovation of Western Airlines 
existing inbound baggage system in the 
South Terminal. $150,000 - No cost to 
Airport. 



16. Request for Approval of Travel /Training for Airports Commission 
Representatives 

No. 85-0160 



I. CORRESPONDENCE: 

Mr. Turpen Introduced a resolution for the ferrying or transfer of Non-FAR 
Part 36 compliant aircraft. <. 

Mr. Turpen explained that in 1978 the Commission adopted a resolution 
saying that after January 1, 1985 any aircraft not complying with federal 
noise standards would not be allowed to operate at SF0. A survey was 
conducted with all airlines at SF0 which determined that all aircraft are 
in compliance. 

Mr. Turpen said inquiries have been received regarding moving or 
positioning aircraft that are non-compliant. He explained that at the end 
of 1984 some carriers wound up with aircraft they had sold but could not 
move. He said that United, which has one of the largest maintenance bases 
in the world located in San Francisco, does a lot of the refitting work. 
They have made requests for six waivers. 

Mr. Turpen said one aircraft was denied landing rights and another was 
given an admonishment for operating into SF0 without permission. 

Mr. Turpen explained that this resolution provides for a waiver, on a 
special case basis, authorizing the Director to exercise the Commission's 
authority under the former policy rather than coming before the Commission 
each time. 

Commissioner Goosby asked Mr. Turpen if he would have the cooperation of 
the FAA. 



Minutes, May 21, 1985, Page 9 



Mr. Turpen said that 1t could not be done without an FAA waiver. 

Mr. Turpen said that conditions have been set establishing a window and 
flight procedure, minimizing the Impact on the surrounding communities. 
The airlines will be expected to comply as a condition of approval. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if the FAA could deny the request to operate. 

Mr. Turpen responded that it could. 



K. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 9:33 A.M. to go into closed session. 





J4U- 

JeaVi Caramatti 
Commission Secretary 



Minutes, May 21, 1985, Page 10 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




MINUTES 



JUNE 18, 1985 



DEC 1 8 



DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

WILLIAM K. COBLENTZ 

Vice-President 

DR. Z.L. GOOSBY 

J. EDWARD FLEISHELL 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 

LOUIS A.TURPEIM 

Director of Airports 

San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

June 18, 1985 



Calendar 
Section 


Agenda 
Item 


Title 


A. 




CALL TO ORDER: 


B. 




ROLL CALL: 


C. 




ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

Regular Meeting of 
May 7, 1985 



Resolution 
Number 



D. 

E. 



ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

1. Smarte Carte: Aproval and 
Award of Modification of 
Operations Agreement 

2. Award of Lease: Entertain- 
ment Center /Video Game Room 
in the North Terminal 

3. Approval of Subleases and 
Subtenants: South Terminal 
Principal Concession Lease 
Agreement 

4. Authorization to Proceed 
with Pre-Bid Conference for 
Lease of Food Catering in the 
Taxi Staging Area of the 
Garage 

5. Design Review Approval: 
"Forget-Me-Not" Shop in the 
North Terminal Building 

6. Design Review Approval: 
Crab and Seafood Kiosks in 
the North Terminal Building 

7. Design Review Approval: 
"Hosiery and Related Gifts" 
Shop in the North Terminal 



Page 

4 
4 



85-0176 



85-0177 



85-0178 



85-0179 



85-0180 



85-0181 



85-0182 



6-7 



Minutes, June 18, 1985, Page 1 



Calendar Agenda Resolution 

Section Item Title Number Page 

8. Authorization to Bid: Finan- 
cial Services Lease 85-0183 8 

9. Computerized Ground Trans- 
portation Information System: 
Renewal of Annual Maintenance 

Agreement 85-0184 9 

F. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

10. Resolution Modifying Lease 
and Use Agreement No. 82-0315 
between Airport and China 

Airlines, Ltd. 85-0185 9 

11. Resolution Modifying Lease 
and Use Agreement No. 82-0177 
between Airport and Japan 

Airlines Co., Ltd. 85-0186 9 

12. Resolution Modifying Lease 
and Use Agreement #82-0119 
between Airport and Northwest 

Airlines, Inc. 85-0187 9 

13. Resolution Modifying Lease 
and Use Agreement #82-0124 
between Airport and Singapore 

Airlines, Ltd. 85-0188 9 

14. Resolution Modifying Lease 
and Use Agreement #82-0114 
between Airport and Canadian 

Pacific Airlines, Ltd. 85-0189 9 

15. Resolution Modifying Lease 
and Use Agreement #82-0121 
between Airport and Pan 

American World Airways, Inc. 85-0190 9 

16. Resolution Modifying Lease 
and Use Agreement #83-0045 
between Airport and Mexicana 

Airlines 85-0191 10 

17. Resolution Modifying Lease 
and Use Agreement #82-0122 
between Airport and 

Qantas Airways, Ltd. 85-0192 10 

18. Resolution Modifying Lease 
and Use Agreement #82-0118 
between Airport and 

Lufthansa German Airlines 85-0193 10 



Minutes, June 18, 1985, Page 2 



Calendar Agenda Resolution 

Section Item Title Number Page 

19. Resolution Modifying Lease 
and Use Agreement #82-0317 
between Airport and 

Philippine Airlines, Inc. 85-0194 10 

20. Resolution Modifying Lease 
and Use Agreement - Inter- 
national Terminal Building 
Interline Ticket Counter Space 
between Airport and: 

Western Airl ines, Inc. 85-0195 

American Airlines, Inc. 85-0196 

Trans World Airlines, Inc. 85-0197 

United Air Lines, Inc. 85-0198 

Continental Airlines, Inc. 85-0199 

Republic Airlines West, Inc. 85-0200 

Delta Air Lines, Inc. 85-0201 10 

21. Statistical Adjustments for 
1984-1985 Joint Use Billings 

under Lease and Use Agreement 85-0202 10 

22. Bid Call: Airport Contract 
No. 1610 Painting of Metal 

Building Roofs-North Field 85-0203 11 

23. Contract 1410ABCD: South 
Terminal Renovation, Phase I 

Type II Modification-$231,666.59 85-0204 11 

24. Tenant Improvement: PSA 
Emergency Shutdown System- 
Hydrant Fueling (T-2954) 85-0205 11 

25. Tenant Improvement: Western 
Airlines-South Terminal and 
Boarding Area 'B' Leasehold 

Improvements - (T-2987) 85-0206 11 

G. CORRESPONDENCE: 12 

I. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO 

CLOSED SESSION: 12 



Minutes, June 18, 1985, Page 3 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

June 18, 1985 



A. CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:00 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



B. ROLL CALL: 



Present: Commissioners Morris Bernstein 

William K. Coblentz 
Z. L. Goosby 
J. Edward Fleishell 
Athena Tsougarakis 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The Minutes of the regular meeting of May 7, 1985 were adopted by order of 
the Commission President. 

No. 85-0176 



D. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

There were no Hems initiated by Commissioners 



Minutes, June 18, 1985, Page 4 



E. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

Item 1 was adopted by a 4-1 vote with Commission Fleishell casting the 
dissenting vote. 

1. Smarte Carte: Approval and Award of Modification of Operating 
Agreement 

No. 85-0177 Resolution to approve the Modification 

of Operating Agreement with Smarte 
Carte for an extension of five years, 
and to award said Modification to 
Smarte Carte. 

Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director, told the Commission that the only 
change in the agreement is that Smarte Carte would retain its 
exclusivity. 

Mr. Pastien of Smarte Carte said his company wished to cooperate with 
the Airport in any way possible. He submitted a letter to the 
Commission as well as a statement signed by the First Bank East (see 
attached) explaining that without the income from the entire Airport 
they would not be able to repay the approximately $300,000 it will 
cost to bui Id the carts. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked Mr. Pastien if the bank loan was on each 
individual contract. He thought that since Smarte Carte operates at 
other airports it would be one continuing guarantee. 

Commissioner Fleishell felt the item should have been re-bid. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if Item 3, "the Commission reserves the 
right to distribute luggage carts free of charge in the Customs area 
through its own staff or other contract," reflected the change. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the Commission can require Smarte Carte to 
distribute carts at a cost not to exceed $1.00. He said the 
Commission's right to distribute carts through a third party has been 
el iminated. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if staff could distribute carts. 

Mr. Turpen responded that Item K on Page 4 of the Agreement states: 
"The Commission shall reserve the unilateral right to require that 
baggage carts be provided by operater free of charge to all arriving 
passengers in the Customs area in exchange for a fee to be paid by 
the Commission to the operator the amount of which shall be 
negotiated but in no case shall exceed $1.00." He explained that the 
last sentence Commissioner Goosby was looking at has been eliminated 
in exchange for the new L shaped cart design. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked if this contract had to go to the 
Finance Committee. 

Mr. Turpen replied it did not. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if the minimum annual guarantee of $40,000 
was still valid. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if it had been negotiated. 

Mr. Turpen replied that it has been negotiated and is before the 
Commission for approval. Smarte Carte will continue to provide carts 
throughout the entire Airport. They will modify the cart design, 
making them more convenient. The Commission has the right, anytime 
during the 5-year period of this agreement, to require Smarte Carte 
to provide carts free of charge to arriving passengers. He explained 
that the "free" carts will cost the Airport $1.00 each. 



Minutes, June 18, 1985, Page 5 



The following items were unanimously adopted. 

2. Award of Lease: 

Entertainment Center/Video Game Room in the North Terminal Building 

No. 85-0178 Resolution authorizing award of Lease 

of Entertainment Center/Video Game 
Room in the North Terminal Building. 

Mr. Turpen explained that on June 13 three bids for the game room 
were submitted and opened. The bids were: The All American Hero 
Restaurant, $79,998.00; Richard Hightower and Margaret Newton, 
$65,200.00; and, the Airport Adventure, $55,000.00. 

Mr. Turpen said the All American Hero Restaurant, the high bidder, is 
an MBE. He reminded the Commission that the settlement with Atari 
left all the equipment in place so that the Airport could install 
another operator fairly quickly. June 21 ends Atari's obligation to 
operate the game room; the new lease will commence on June 22, 1985. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked who gets title to the equipment in the 
two Atari locations. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the Airport had title to the equipment. 
The new operator walks into a fully fixturized facility. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked that if and when the machines are 
changed will the equipment be surrendered to the Airport. 

Mr. Turpen replied that it has already been surrendered to the 
Airport. The new operator will use the same equipment and the same 
location. 

Commissioner Fleishell felt that Atari's failure was in not changing 
the games. He added that the games they were going to leave were 
valueless. He said that the question is when the new operator buys 
new games who owns title to them and what happens to the old games. 

Angela Gittens, Deputy Director for Business and Finance, responded 
that staff had not anticipated that the new operator would put new 
games in. She said this is just a year-to-year agreement. If new 
games are installed they will belong to the operator. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked what happens to the old games. 

Ms. Gittens said it is the Airport's property and they can be 
disposed of as we see fit. 

Mr. Turpen commented that two of the old games had already been put 
in the US0. 



3. Approval of Subleases and Subtenants: 

South Terminal Principal Concession Lease Agreement 

No. 85-0179 Resolution approving affirmative 

action subleases and subtenants of 
Host International, Inc. as South 
Terminal Principal Concessionaire. 



Minutes, June 18, 1985, Page 6 



Ms. Gittens explained that staff is asking the Commission to cede to 
the Director the approval of the subleases since they will not be 
available until the end of this week. She explained that staff is 
currently reviewing a preliminary proposal submitted by Host and the 
July 2 meeting will be too late to try to get going on it. 

Mr. Turpen asked if this approach had been cleared with the Human 
Rights Commission. 

Ms. Gittens responded that the approach has been cleared with Human 
Rights but they must still approve the minority representation. 



4. Authorization to Proceed with Pre-Bid Conference for Lease of Food 
Catering in the Taxi Staging Area of the Garage 

No. 85-0180 Resolution approving leasehold 

specifications and authorizing 
Director to hold a pre-bid conference 
for the Lease of Food Catering in the 
Taxi Staging area of the Garage. 

Mr. Turpen said that the Commission agreed some time ago to relocate 
the taxi staging area and the center of the garage will be used for 
that purpose in the near future. Coincident with that move there are 
a number of people who want to provide catering services to the taxi 
drivers. Staff would like to bid these services. He explained that 
the top two bidders will be taken. The high bidder will have a 
preference of day or swing shift and the second high bidder will get 
the remaining shift. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if it was required that they put in nine 
hours each. 

Ms. Gittens responded yes. 

Mr. Turpen said that the vending machines, which have been there for 
some time, have been a marginal effort and required continual 
maintenance due to vandalism. Staff tried setting up a lottery two 
or three years ago but no one observed it. He said there were fist 
fights in the lot and it turned into a terrible situation. 

Commissioner Coblentz asked if it would be profitable for the truck 
to stay at the Airport for nine hours. 

Mr. Turpen, responded that taxis start entering the garage around 
6 a.m. and wait for the first passenger arrivals. 

Commissioner Bernstein commented that one vendor working longer hours 
might enable him to sell all of his food. 

Commissioner Coblentz felt this makes sense as it gives the taxi 
drivers decent food. 

Mr. Turpen said it also solves the problem of twenty-five vendors 
wanting to be in the garage at the same time to serve the same 
cl ientele. 



Minutes, June 18, 1985, Page 7 



5. Design Review Approval: 

"Forget-Me-Not" Shop in the North Terminal Building 

No. 85-0181 Resolution approving the schematic 

design of the new "Forget-Me-Not" Shop 
in the North Terminal Building. 



6. Design Review Approval: 

Crab and Seafood Kiosks in the North Terminal Building 

No. 85-0182 Resolution approving the schematic 

design of the new Crab and Seafood 
Kiosks in the North Terminal Building. 



Item 7 was put over. 

7. Design Review Approval: 

"Hosiery and Related Gifts" Shop in the North Terminal Building 

Resolution approving the schematic 
design of the new "Hosiery and Related 
Gifts" Shop in the North Terminal 
Bui lding. 

Mr. Turpen said that Howard Friedman had some concerns about this and 
suggested putting the item over. 



The Commission gave its unanimous approval to excuse Commissioner 
Tsougarakis from voting on Item 8. The following items were unanimously 
adopted. 

8. Authorization to Bid: 
Financial Services Lease 

No. 85-0183 Resolution approving the lease 

document for Financial Services Lease 
and authorization to bid. 

Mr. Turpen said that staff had sent out documents to over 300 banks 
and savings and loans and only one person showed up at the pre-bid 
conference. 

Ms. Gittens said that staff is still trying to elicit interest. She 
said that staff has talked to three or four banks and financial 
institutions that they feel have the kind of philosophy that might 
make them interested in the Airport. Ms. Gittens said she thought at 
least one other bank or financial institution would be interested and 
hoped that their silence up to this point was for competitive 
purposes. She concluded that at this point staff is only looking at 
one bid and recommended that the bidding process proceed. 



Minutes, June 18, 1985, Page 8 



Computerized Ground Transportation Information System: 
Renewal of Annual Maintenance Agreement 

No. 85-0184 Resolution allowing Director of 

Airports to enter into an agreement to 
continue to provide maintenance 
services for the Computerized Ground 
Transportation Information System for 
an additional year. 



F. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

The following items were unanimously adopted. 

10. Resolution Modifying Lease and Use Agreement No. 82-0315 between 
Airport and China Airlines, Ltd. 

No. 85-0185 



11. Resolution Modifying Lease and Use Agreement No. 82-0177 between 
Airport and Japan Airlines Co., Ltd. 

No. 85-0186 



12. Resolution Modifying Lease and Use Agreement #82-0119 between Airport 
and Northwest Airlines, Inc. 

No. 85-0187 



13. Resolution Modifying Lease and Use Agreement #82-0124 between Airport 
and Singapore Airport and Singapore Airlines, Ltd. 

No. 85-0188 



14. Resolution Modifying Lease and Use Agreement #82-0114 between "Airport 
and Canadian Pacific Airlines, Ltd. 

No. 85-0189 



15. Resolution Modifying Lease and Use Agreement #82-0121 between Airport 
and Pan American World Airways, Inc. 

No. 85-0190 



Minutes, June 18, 1985, Page 9 



16. Resolution Modifying Lease and Use Agreement #83-0045 between Airport 
and Mexicana Airl ines 

No. 85-0191 



17. Resolution Modifying Lease and Use Agreement #82-0122 between Airport 
and Qantas Airways, Ltd. 

No. 85-0192 



18. Resolution Modifying Lease and Use Agreement #82-0118 between Airport 
and Lufthansa German Airlines 

No. 85-0193 



19. Resolution Modifying Lease and Use Agreement #82-0317 between Airport 
and Philippine Airlines, Inc. 

No. 85-0194 



20. Resolutions Modifying Lease and Use Agreement - International 
Terminal Building Interline Ticket Counter Space 

Resolutions modifying Lease and Use 
Agreements between the Airport and the 
following airlines using Interline 
Ticket Counter Space at the 
International Terminal Building: 

Lease & Use 
Airl ine Agreement No. 

No. 85-0195 Western Airlines 82-0127 

No. 85-0196 American Airlines 82-0111 

No. 85-0197 Trans World Airlines 82-0125 

No. 85-0198 United Air Lines 82-0126 

No. 85-0199 Continental Airlines 82-0316 

No. 85-0200 Republic Airlines West 82-0123 

No. 85-0201 Delta Air Lines 82-0115 



21. Statistical Adjustments for 1984-1985 Joint Use Billings under Lease 
and Use Agreement 

No. 85-0202 Resolution adjusting 1984-85 Joint Use 

Billings pursuant to Section 101. W of 
the Airline Airport Lease and Use 
Agreement for Korean Air Lines Co., 
Ltd. 



Minutes, June 18, 1985, Page 10 



22. Bid Call: Airport Contract No. 1610 

Painting of Metal Building Roofs - North Field 

No. 85-0203 Resolution approving scope, budget and 

schedule for Contract No. 1610 and 
authorizing the Director of Airports 
to call for bids when ready. 

The work consists of painting the 
sheet metal roofs of three buildings 
including reattaching and replacing of 
some roof sheets as needed. 

Contract time is 90 calendar days. 



23. Contract 1410ABCD: 

South Terminal Renovation, Phase I 
Type II Modification - $231,666.59 

No. 85-0204 Contract modification to provide 

additional work for unforeseen 
conditions, increased scope, and 
deficiencies in the plans and 
specifications. 



24. Tenant Improvement: 

PSA Emergency Shutdown System - Hydrant Fueling (T-2954) 

No. 85-0205 Installation of an Emergency Shutdown 

System for PSA's Hydrant Fuel System 
on Boarding Area 'A'. $60,000. No 
cost to Airport. 



25. Tenant Improvement: 

Western Airlines - South Terminal and Boarding Area 'B' 
Leasehold Improvements - (T-2987) 

No. 85-0206 New construction and remodeling of 

Western Airlines airline ticket 
office, ticket counters, baggage and 
operation offices, holdroom equipment 
and V.I. P. room. $422,382. 

No cost to Airport except for $51,174 
for ticket counter shell of future 
unidentified airline and other 
reimbursable work. 



Minutes, June 18, 1985, Page 11 



G. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission. 



F. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 9:20 A.M. to go into closed session. 



Caramatti 
Commission Secretary 






Minutes, June 18, 1985, Page 12 



June 17, 1985 



Airports Commission 
City and County of San Francisco 
Honorable Dianne Feinstein, Mayor 
Morris Bernstein, President 
William K. Coblentz, Vice-President 
Dr. Z. L. Goosby, Commissioner 
J. Edward Fleishell, Commissioner 
Athena Tsougarakis, Commissioner 
Airport Management and Staff 



2480 E. County Road F. 

White Bear Lake, Minnesota 55110 

Telephone (612) 429-3614 

Wats 1-800-328-9006 

Telex 501215 



smarte carte 



INC. 



I would like to take this opportunity to make a statement to clarify my 
position, and that of Smarte Carte, Inc., as it relates to providing cart 
control services in airports. We have always considered the needs of the 
traveling public to be the most important element in our approach to providing 
this service. In that regard, the best way to insure a pleasant experience is 
to provide those needs in a consistent way. This holds true when they are 
coming in from a foreign country and as they proceed on with their domestic 
travels. Our method of insuring consistency is to be exactly the same 
everywhere. And, as we grow and provide our services to more and more airports, 
our style of cart management is gaining acceptance world-wide. 

We are extremely cautious when it comes to changing our methods of cart 
management or the carts and cart control equipment we use for fear of upsetting 
the delicate balance that must be maintained to keep consistency and ease of use 
everywhere our services are used. For that reason we may appear slow to change, 
however, we have changed and grown up with this industry over the years. But we 
have done so in a very cautious way, considering all the places and ways in 
which the public is exposed to, and uses, our product. 

When it comes to serving the public we have always been, and will continue to 
be, a cooperative partner with the airports that use our services. 

Since we need the full support of our lending institution to be able to provide 
our service, we must abide by the constraints they have placed on us to insure 
that they are protected against any major loss. Two of those constraints are 
that we must have a five year contract providing income to pay for equipment we 
build and that that income is maintained at or above current levels. 

It is our sincere hope that we can continue to provide our services to the San 
Francisco International Airport and to the traveling public it serves as we have 
over the past five years. We wish to maintain the excellent working 
relationship that has developed over the years between the airport, our company 
and the public, while, at the same time, keeping our income sufficient to meet 
our banking commitments. 

Sincerely, 



Eugene R. Pastien 
Vice President 



Attachment - reference statement from bank 



First Bank East 



First Bank East, National Association 

1000 Payne Avenue 

St Paul, Minnesota 55101 

612 778-2600 



June 13, 1985 



Mr. Eugene Pastien 

Vice President 

Smarte Carte, Inc. 

2480 E. County Road F 

White Bear Lake, Minnesota 55110 

RE: San Francisco Contract 

Dear Gene : 

In an effort to clarify our position regarding Smarte Carte's 
contract negotiations with San Francisco. 

Our decision to finance new cart construction is based primarily 
on cash flow. Should you sign a contract allowing significant 
cash flow reduction, and in the future this happens, it would 
more than likely create a default in our loan agreement. First 
Bank East would then have available all such remedies as stated 
in the loan agreement, including the possibility of calling all 
loans due and payable. This demand for payment would conceivably 
put Smarte Carte, Inc. out of business. 

If you have any questions or need further clarification, please 
call me at 778-2634. 



Sincerely, 



/% 



%-*-? s- as J?/. )y~ cecal. <y 



Mona M. Krueger 
Commercial Loan Rep. 

MMK/rmk 



Arcade Street Office Little Canada Office 

720 Arcade Street • St Paul. MN 55106 • 778-2500 2850 Rice Street • St Paul. MN 55113 • 482-9600 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 



MINUTES 



JUNE 4, 1985 

6 



DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

WILLIAM K. COBLENTZ 

Vice-President 

DR. Z.L. GOOSBY 

J. EDWARD FLEISHELL 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 

LOUIS A.TURPEN 

Director of Airports 

San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

June 4, 1985 



Calendar 
Section 


Agenda 
Item 


Title 


A. 




CALL TO ORDER 


B. 




ROLL CALL: 


C. 




DIRECTOR'S REI 



Resolution 
Number 



Report on Sale of Lottery 
Tickets at S.F.I. A. 

ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

Transfer of $829,074.50 to the 
Art Commission with Conditions 



Smarte Carte 
Lease Option 



Proposed 



Resolution Awarding Lease - 
South Terminal Principal 
Concession Lease 

Resolution Modifying 
United Airlines Maint- 
enance Operations Lease 

Modification No. 7 to 
Agreement with Morrison 
& Foerster 

Award of Contract No. 1521R 
Garage Signing - Electronicl 
Display Signs 

CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

Tenant Improvement: PSA 
Demolition Work at Boarding 
Area A Rotunda - Phase 1 
(T-2973-A) 



85-0162 
85-0163 

85-0164 

85-0165 

85-0166 

85-0167 



Page 

3 
3 



3-4 
4 



4 
5 

5-6 



85-0168 



Minutes, June 4, 1985, Page 1 



Calendar Agenda Resolution 

Section Item Title Number Page 

9. Design Review Approval/ 
New Sign at Main Facility 
of Citicorp 1n Interna- 
tional Terminal 85-0169 7 

10. Approval of Sublease be- 
tween Republic Airlines 

and Pacific Southwest 85-0170 8 

11. Bid Call for Contract 1702 
Replacement of Roof at 

Rotunda A 85-0171 8 

12. Modification to Contract 
1410EF - South Terminal 
Renovation, Phase II, Type II 

$188,391. 85-0172 8 

13. Award of professional 
Service Agreement for 
Corrosion Survey of 

S.F.I. A. - $29,850. 85-0173 8 

14. Professional Services 
Agreement - Wadell Engin- 
eering Corporation, Extension 

of Time 85-0174 8 

15. Declaration of Emergency - 
Power Cable 4BC-2, Sewage and 
Industrial Waste Pumping 

Stations 85-0175 8-9 

G. CORRESPONDENCE: 9 

I. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO 

CLOSED SESSION: 9 



Minutes, June 4, 1985, Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

June 4, 1985 



CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:00 A.M. In Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



B. ROLL CALL: 



Present: Commissioners Morris Bernstein 

William K. Coblentz 
Z. L. Goosby 
J. Edward Flei shell 
Athena Tsougarakls 



DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

1. Report on Sale of Lottery Tickets at S.F.I. A. 

Report outlining options available on 
how to sell lottery tickets at San 
Francisco International Airport. 

Mr. Turpen explained that the recommendation Is to allow the sale of 
lottery tickets on revokable 30-day permits. He said that the 
tickets will be sold at 12 locations on the Airport which will 
Include newsstands, barber shops, Insurance counters and long-term 
luggage storage. He said that If the Commission agrees staff will 
proceed. 

Commissioner Flelshell said that the Mayor had Indicated to him that 
lottery tickets should not be sold on public property. He 
recommended checking with the Mayor's Office before procedlng. He 
said that the best sales areas In other states have been commuter 
operations, not airports. 

Mr. Turpen asked the Commission If, absent any objection from the 
Mayor's Office, staff could proceed as outlined. 

The Commission had no objection. 

Mr. Turpen said he would file the Mayor's response with the 
Commission. 



Minutes, June 4, 1985, Page 3 



Commissioner Bernstein commented that the vendor's commission would 
onlybe 2.5 percent and he did not think anyone would want to handle 
It for such a small amount. 

Commissioner Fl el shell commented that 5 percent Is considered 
Inadequate by some people. 

Mr. Turpen said he would return to the Commission with a follow-up In 
30 days. 



D. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

There were no items initiated by Commissioners, 



E. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

The following items were unanimously adopted. 

2. Transfer of $829,074.50 to the Art Commission with Conditions. 

No. 85-0162 Resolution authorizing the transfer of 

$829,074.50 to the Art Commission with 
the following conditions: 

1. No money shall be expended 
without prior approval of the 
Airports Commission. 

2. A quarterly report shall be 
submitted to the Airports 
Commission on the status of the 
account. 

The $833,074.50 represents the balance 
of the funds already set aside as 
required by City Charter for the 
Airport's Art Enrichment Program. The 
purpose of the transfer Is to 
streamline accounting procedures while 
maintaining controls by the Airports 
Commission. 

Commissioner Coblentz said that Jason Yuen has worked this out and 
the money will not be expended without the approval of the Airports 
Commission. He said this 1s a time-saving device, simplifying the 
procedure but retaining the limitations of the past. He explained 
that It usually takes a good deal of time for an artist to receive 
payment for services that have been rendered. 



Minutes. June 4, 1985, Page 4 



3. Smarte Carte - Proposed Lease Option 

No. 85-0163 Resolution to authorize the Director 

of Airports to enter Into lease 
renewal negotiations with Smarte Carte. 

Mr. Turpen said this Item enables the Director to enter Into lease 
negotiations with Smarte Carte In order to ensure a timely 
renegotiation of their lease. He said there were two points made at 
the last meeting: (1) that the Commission reserves the right to 
distribute carts free of charge 1n the FIS area through Its own staff 
rather than through the contractor's staff; and, (2) the question of 
the time line for a substitute of the cart. 

Mr. Turpen said that Smarte Carte has agreed to a non-Smarte Carte 
vendor In the Customs area. Further, by July 30 Smarte Carte will 
have a prototype available for the Commission. He added that once 
the prototype 1s developed 1t would be about 180 days before the new 
cart would be In the terminals. 

Mr. Turpen explained that this resolution authorizes him to nail down 
the schedule and set an effective time line. He said he will offer a 
follow-up report and present the Commission with a formal package for 
adoption which will extend the lease and list the pertinent points 
relating to the replacement of carts. He added that the lease will 
Include a sentence allowing the Airport to have a third party 
dispense carts In the FIS area. 

Commissioner Tsougarakls asked for a clarification of item 4. 

Mr. Turpen responded that presently It is 10 percent of gross. The 
amount has been adjusted in the event the decision Is made to bring 
1n a third party to dispense carts. He explained that Customs 1s 50 
percent of Smarte Carte's business so to require a $40,000 minimum 
against a percentage would be inappropriate if the Airport decided to 
bring in a third party. He said that as long as Smarte Carte 
continues to provide carts in Customs they will be operating at 10 
percent of gross. Mr. Turpen added that the old minimum was 12 
percent. 

Commissioner Goosby suggested that the percentage could be set with 
the provision that if another vendor is allowed in Customs, Smarte 
Carte's minimum will be reduced. 

Mr. Turpen responded that Commission Goosby had a good point and 
staff will take a look at it. 



4. Resolution Awarding Lease - South Terminal Principal Concession Lease 

No. 85-0164 Resolution awarding Principal " 

Concession Lease and Agreement for 
Merchandising Sales in the South 
Terminal Building to Host 
International, Inc. 

Commissioner Goosby, as a point of clarification, said that a 5 
percent credit Is given to LBE, MBE and WBE bidders but the credit Is 
not reflected in the bid when 1t is submitted. 

Mr. Turpen explained that Host has an operating office In San 
Francisco, making them a local business. 



Minutes, June 4, 1985, Page 5 



Commissioner Flelshell asked If a corporation, formed anywhere else, 
Is considered a local business If an office 1s opened In San 
Francisco. 

Mr. Turpen said that was his understanding of the Interpretation of 
the ordinance. 



5. Resolution Modifying United Airlines Maintenance Operations Lease 

No. 85-0165 Resolution modifying the United 

Airlines M.O.C. lease by adjusting 
ground rental rates and exchanging 
portions of land. 

Commissioner Coblentz felt that this makes a lot of sense. 

Commissioner Tsougarakls asked why It took two years. 

Mr. Turpen' s response was because United would not agree. 

Commissioner Tsougarakls commented that the Airport lost $30,000 In 
Interest. 

The following Item was adopted as amended by a 4-1 vote with Commissioner 
Goosby casting the dissenting vote. 

6. Modification No. 7 to Agreement with Morrison and Foerster 

No. 85-0166 Resolution authorizing and approving 

modification of agreement with 
Morrison and Foerster to extend term 
of agreement from June 30, 1985 to 
June 30, 1986. 

Commissioner Goosby felt that staff should keep a close watch over 
the amount of money being spent on outside attorneys. He thought 
Morrison and Foerster should be asked to joint venture with an MBE or 
WBE firm on small claims cases. 

Mr. Turpen said he would convey Commissioner Goosby' s concerns to the 
City Attorney. 

Commissioner Flelshell asked what anti-trust problems the Airport 
had. He said that State and Federal laws make us immune. 

Mr. Don Garibaldi, Airport General Counsel, responded that the 
anti-trust problems are minimal. He said that the section Is already 
In the contract and makes Morrison and Foerster available In the 
event they are needed on anti-trust concerns. He added that small 
claims cases are principally Involved In the contract. 

Commissioner Coblentz felt that the contract should be limited to 
small claims cases. He added that It Is the responsibility of the 
Commission to distribute these professional services contracts to 
other law firms. He said this was no reflection on Morrison and 
Foerster. 

Commissioner Flelshell agreed with Commissioner Coblentz and added 
that Morrison and Foerster have been very helpful. 



Minutes, June 4, 1985, Page 6 



The following Item was unanimously adopted as amended. 

7. Award of Contract No. 1 521 R 

Garage Signing - Electronic Display Signs 

No. 85-0167 Resolution awarding Contract No. 1 521 R. 

Seven bids were received on April 9, 
1985 with the amounts ranging from 
$109,500.00 to $151,000.00. 

Mr. Dennis Bouey, Deputy Director for Facilities, Operations and 
Maintenance, explained that American Sign protested the Human Rights 
Commission's decision that they were not a local company. American 
Sign Is located In Spokane but has an office In San Francisco. The 
Human Rights Commission found that their "office" constituted a desk 
and a recently Installed phone. He said that American Sign took the 
Airport and HRC to court. The court awarded an alternative writ to 
HRC but no action was taken against the Airport. 

Mr. Bouey said that the Airport can either award of reject all bids. 
He recommended rejecting all bids. He explained that If the bid was 
awarded to Abbott, the second bidder, and the court should find 
against HRC, the Airport will be liable for damages. He said this Is 
not a crucial contract and added that this Is the second time It has 
been bid and the price has gone down. Mr. Bouey told the Commission 
that the 60-day statutory limit to award comes up on June 8. 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 
The following Items were unanimously adopted. 

8. Tenant Improvement: PSA Demolition Work at Boarding Area A Rotunda - 
Phase I (T-2973-A) 

No. 85-0168 Demolition of existing partitions and 

utilities 1n PSA's ground operations 
area at Boarding Area A, $32,000. No 
cost to Airport. 

9. Design Review Approval/New Sign at Main Facial 1 ty of Citicorp In 
International Terminal 

No. 85-0169 Resolution approving the schematic 

design of new sign at main facilities 
of Citicorp Foreign Currency Exchange 
In International Terminal. 

Commissioner Coblentz assumed that the sign has been approved by 
Jason Yuen and Howard Friedman. 

Mr. Yuen responded that It has. 



Minutes, June 4, 1985, Page 7 



10. Approval of Sublease between Republic Airlines and Pacific Southwest 

No. 85-0170 Resolution approving the sublease of 

South Terminal office space from 
Republic Airlines by Pacific Southwest 
Airlines. 



11. Bid Call for Contract 1702 
Replacement of Roof at Rotunda A 

No. 85-0171 Resolution approves bid call and also 

approves construction budget. 
Existing roof developed several leaks 
during the last rainstorm due to 
delamlnatlon of roofing layers. 

12. Modification to Contracyt 1410EF 

South Termlnalk Renovation, Phase II, Type II - $188,391.00 

No. 85-0172 Contract modification to provide: 1) 

Relocation of main telephone and 
12,000-volt power cables; 2) 
Structural steel modlflcatons; 3) 
Replacement of an existing elevator; 
4) Additional plumbing for drinking 
fountains; 5) Substitution of test 
proven metal panels for untested 
panels. 



13. Award of Professional Service Agreement 

for Corrosion Survey of San Francisco International Airport - 
$29,850.00 

No. 85-0173 

14. Professional Services Agreement 
Wadell Engineering Corporation 
Extension of Time 

No. 85-0174 Approval of extension of time for 

Professional Services Agreement with 
Wadell Engineering Corporation for the 
design and construction of Contract 
1371, Reconstruct and Overlay Runway 
1L-19R. There Is no charge In the 
contract cost. 



15. Declaration of Emergency - Power Cable 4BC-2 
Sewage and Industrial Waste Pumping Stations 

No. 85-0175 Proposed resolution declaring the 

existence of an emergency In the 
failure of Power Cable 4BC-2 serving 
Sewage Pumping Station 6A and 
Industlal Waste Pumping Station C, 
directing the Director of Airports to 



Minutes, June 4, 1985, Page 8 



effect the necessary replacement and 
requesting the Controller to certify 
funds needed to effect such repairs. 

Power Cable - $20,000.00 



G. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission. 



I. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 9:20 AM to go Into closed session. 




eAn Caramattl 
amission Secretary 



Minutes, June 4, 1985, Page 9 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




MINUTES 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

DEC | 8 B85 

PUBLIC L 



JULY 2, 1985 



DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

WILLIAM K. COBLENTZ 

Vice-President 

DR. Z.L. GOOSBY 

J. EDWARD FLEISHELL 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 



LOUIS A.TURPEN 

Director of Airports 



San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 
Airports Commission 

July 2, 1985 



Calendar 
Section 


Agenda 
Item 


Title 


A. 




CALL TO ORDER: 


B. 




ROLL CALL: 


C. 




ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 
Regular Meetings of 
May 21 , 1985 and 
June 4, 1985 



Resolution 
Number 



85-0224 
85-0225 



Page 

4 
4 



DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

1 . Report on Naming of 
Airport Streets and 
Roads 

ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

POLICY: 

2. Review of Airports Commission 

Small Business Policy 85-0207 

3. Surety Payment Policy 

ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

4. Airport Motor Coach Service 
Agreement - Prequal ification 

Documents 85-0208 

5. Design Review Approval: 
"Hosiery and Related Gifts" 

Shop in the North Terminal 85-0209 

6. Design Review Approval: 
"Sunglasses Kiosks" in 

the North Terminal 85-0210 

7. South Terminal Shoeshine 
Lease - Authorization to 

Bid 85-0211 

8. Resolution Approving Expen- 
diture for Art Work in South 
Terminal Complex - $76,500. 

9. Award of Contract 1702: 
Replacement of Defective 
Roofing at Boarding Area 'A' 

Rotunda - $73,051 . 85-0212 



4-5 

5 

6-8 
8 



8-12 



12 



12 



13 



13 



13 



Calendar 


Age 


nda 




Resolution 


Section 


Item 


T 


itle 




10. 






Airport Health and 
Fitness Center 




11. 






Professional Services 
Contract - $31,000 



Number Page 

85-0213 14 

14 

CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

12. Bid Call - Airport Contract 

No. 1660, Silt Removal 1985 85-0214 14 

13. Award of Airport Contract 
1649, Cable Replacement 

Cable 12TRA-1 and 12BANB-1 85-0215 14 

14. Award of Airport Contract 
No. 1638, Emergency Pave- 
ment Repairs (1985-86) 85-0216 15 

15. Award of Airport Contract 
No. 1631, Replacement of 
10-Inch Effluent Line at 
Industrial Waste Treatment 

Plant 85-0217 15 

16. Approval of Sublease and 
Amendment between Trans 
World Airl ines, Inc. and 

Alaska Airlines, Inc. 85-0218 15 

17. Statistical Adjustments 
for 1984-85 Joint Use 
Billings under Lease 

and Use Agreement 85-0219 15 

18. Tenant Improvement: 
American Airl ines Air 
Freight Office Renovation 

Plot 9, T-2966 - $150,000. 85-0220 15 

19. Tenant Improvement: Air- 
port Hilton, Fire Protection 
System Upgrade, Plot 2, 

T-2994 - $750,000.00 85-0221 . 16 

20. Declaration of Emergency 
Water Main and Pavement 
Repair, Airport Contract 

No. 1661A.B 85-0222 16 

21. Contract with Asian Art 

Museum of San Francisco 16 



Minutes, July 2, 1985, Page 2 



Calendar Agenda Resolution 

Section Item Title Number Page 



22. Request for Approval of * 
Travel /Training for 
Airports Commission 
Representatives 85-0223 16 

CORRESPONDENCE: 16 

ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO 

CLOSED SESSION: 17 



Minutes, July 2, 1985, Page 3 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

July 2, 1985 



A. CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:00 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



B. ROLL CALL: 



Present: Commissioners Morris Bernstein, 

Z. L. Goosby, 
J. Edward Fleishel 1 , 
Athena Tsougarakis 

Absent: William K. Coblentz 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The Minutes of the regular meetings of May 21, 1985 and June 4, 1985 were 
adopted by order of the Commission President. 

No. 85-0224 
No. 85-0225 



DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

1. Report on Naming of Airports Streets and Roads 

Mr. Turpen said that this report is in response to the Commission's 
suggestion that staff pursue the naming of Airport streets and 
roads. He called the Commission's attention to Paragraph 4 and said 
it should read "After persons who have provided the City of San 
Francisco in the field of transportation or the Airport with either 
significant achievement or outstanding service. .. .that no street or 
road shall be named after a living person unless that individual has 
not been affiliated with the Airport for a period of at least five 
years." 



Minutes, July 2, 1985, Page 4 



Commissioner Goosby felt the wording was convoluted. 

Mr. Turpen welcomed any suggestions from the Commission. He said 
that staff has tried to develop some sort of criteria and the 
Commission can accept or reject any or all of the recommendations. 

Commissioner Fleishell suggested that Mr. Turpen might want to check 
any interest the Mayor might have in the South Terminal being named 
after her. 

Commissioner Goosby added that a street should be named after the 
Mayor. 

Mr. Turpen suggested revising the report to state that the 
Commission, at its sole discretion, can make whatever decisions it 
wishes. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that the requirement of 4-votes to name a 
street was a very good suggestion. 

Mr. Turpen said that staff would keep the 4-vote requirement and 
waive the rest. He said that the Commission can name a street or 
road after anyone they care to. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if staff was going to drop items one, two 
and three. 

Mr. Turpen responded that item 4 would also be dropped. 

Commissioner Goosby felt that some language should be included so 
that an effective selection process would be maintained. 

Mr. Turpen said the language would be cleaned up. 



E. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

Commissioner Fleishell said that Senator Petris has introduced Senate Bill 
106. This bill would essentially require all real estate brokers to 
provide information to the buyer of residential property, or property with 
up to four units, advising them of all the defects of the property, i.e. 
that it is located on a swamp, or next to a leather tanning factory. He 
suggested having the bill amended to require the disclosure that the 
buyer's property is located within the 70-decibel area. He said that 
Commissioners Bernstein and Coblentz agreed that this should be pursued. 
Mr. Gilles recommended not trying to amend the bill as it has already 
passed the Senate and is now in the Assembly. He said that since his 
group prints the forms and sells them to real estate brokers he suggested 
that the appropriate language be added to the form. 

Commissioner Fleishell said he had counsel prepare the appropriate 
language which was sent to Ed Gerber who, in turn, was to talk to Gilles 
and the California real estate brokers urging them to include it in the 
mandatory document. 

Commissioner Fleishell added that people who buy homes within the 
70-decibel area cannot institute litigation and this legislation at least 
warns them of that fact. 



Minutes, July 2, 1985, Page 5 



POLICY: 

2. Review of Airports Commission Small Business Policy 

No. 85-0207 Review and compare the Commission's 

Small Business Policy with the 
policies of other agencies. 

Mr. Turpen said that the Commission has asked staff to review the 
Airport's Small Business Policy. Included in staff's review are the 
small business definitions used by L.A. and Oakland. Staff 
recommends that we increase the single individual limit to 
$600,000.00 from $500,000.00 and maintain the $2-mi 1 1 ion annual gross 
sale cut-off for companies with more than one principal. He said 
that staff feels this will update the single individual limit defined 
in 1982. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked if that meant $500,000.00 per year. 

Mr. Turpen responded that it was the total for each of the past three 
years. 

Commissioner Goosby said that he felt the Airport would be in 
conflict with the Human Rights Commission's small business 
definition. He said that a small business can gross $2-mi 1 1 ion per 
year and qualify under the Human Rights Commission's definition but 
the Airport defines small business as not exceeding $500,000. 
Commissioner Goosby said the Board of Supervisors adopted as official 
City policy the Human Rights Commission's small business criteria and 
that the Airport is not following the policy of the City and County 
of San Francisco in setting the $500,000.00 gross per year. 

Commissioner Goosby continued that the effort of this Commission in 
setting up a small business policy was to aid small local businesses 
in getting a piece of the concession action at the Airport. He said 
the Airport is not just looking for the new entreprenuer but the 
businessman with a track record and that is why he would like to 
raise the minimum. He said it is not his intention, nor the 
Commission's intention, to insure the failure of the small marginal 
local business. The Airport wants small but strong minority 
businesses who may very well have had a gross of $750,000.00 one 
year. He added that the United States Government criteria has even a 
larger minimum. Commissioner Goosby said he has received complaints 
over the past year from businesses wanting to come to the Airport but 
have been eliminated because of the minimum. 

Commissioner Goosby said he would vote against this item. He thought 

that raising the minimum to $ 1 -mi 1 1 i on for one principal and 

$4-mi 1 1 ion for a conglomerate would be better than the current 
figures. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked what the City policy is. 

Angela Gittens, Deputy Director for Business & Finance, responded 
that in the HRC ordinance for the MBE/WBE/LBE coordinates the 
standard small is set at $2-mi 1 1 ion total. She said there was no 
recognition of the number of individuals involved in the business. 
HRC has agreed, administratively, to continue to certify our small 
business contracts on our criteria. At this point HRC does not 
particularly see a conflict. 



Minutes, July 2, 1985, Page 6 



Ms. Gittens said there has been minority business enterprise in each 
of the last four bids done as small business set asides so she felt 
the policy is working. She said that as far as she knew the Airport 
is the only City department that has a small business policy. 

Commissioner Goosby said the Port has adopted the Human Rights 
Commissions' definition. He said that according to reports he has 
received, some businesses have not even bothered to show up to bid 
because they knew they would be eliminated as a result of the minimum. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis clarified Ms. Gittens' comments by saying 
that the last four contracts have been awarded to small business 
enterprises under the Airport's definition. She said it doesn't 
matter how many came in because all four were awarded to minorities. 

Commissioner Goosby pointed out that more small businessmen would be 
included with a higher minimum. He felt that a business making 
$600,000 or $750,000 a year is still a small business. He argued 
that the lower minimum brings in marginal businesses just starting 
out. He said that the purpose is not to let them get a foot in the 
door only to have them go broke. 

Commissioner Goosby said that George Agnost, the City Attorney, 
opined that it is unconstitutional to have set asides for minorities, 
however, there could be set asides for small business. He said the 
small business policy was adopted because most minority businesses 
are small. The low minimum, however, only serves to eliminate a lot 
of minority businesses. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked how many of the four were new 
businesses. 

Ms. Gittens responded that one was new, the other three were existing. 

Ms. Gittens added that the HRC guideline is a $2-mi 1 1 ion total so if 
we were to stay within those guidelines we would not be able to go up 
to $3-million, $4-mi 1 1 ion or $5-mi 1 1 i on for a multiple-person 
enterpri se. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that his idea of a minority enterprise 
program is not to take the rich, politically oriented minority doctor 
or lawyer and make him richer. His idea is to exemplify what has 
been done with a minority group in the Central Terminal. He said 
that SF0 is doing 25 times better than Atlanta ever dreamed of 
doing. They put together a minority group all of whom were already 
well off. 

Commissioner Fleishell said Dr. Goosby had a good point; at what 
point does a minority put himself out of contention? He said that is 
a paradox that runs through all of our bidding. He cited the bus 
contract as an example of an operator who has been on the job but 
because he has had the same employees for a great number of years he 
ends up pricing himself, in part, out of the bidding process. He 
said that two or three of the original people in business in the 
Central Terminal have been successful bidders on the next phase of 
Airport concessions. He said he did not know what the answer is but 
he did not think the little guy who is trying to get ahead should be 
knocked out of the box because a company finds a silent, politically 
active minority who offers a partnership. 

Commissioner Bernstein said he would like to see the limit raised so 
that the Airport could get better concessionaires. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis did not see anything wrong with the policy 
since there is evidence that it is working at the Airport. 



Minutes, July 2, 1985, Page 7 



Commissioner Flei shell added that the Airport has contracts that go 
out to competetive bid where many times only one bid is received. He 
asked Dr. Goosby what numbers he felt would be appropriate for a 
small business. 

Commissioner Goosby responded that he could support a $1 -mi 1 1 ion/ 
$4-mi 11 ion combination. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis responded that that would be going against 
what the City is doing. 

Commissioner Goosby said he would would like to see the Airport 
assume the Human Rights Commission figure of $2-mi 1 1 ion . 

Commissioner Goosby said that the City defines anyone, whether an 
individual or a group, that grosses $2-million a year or less to be 
considered a small business. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis responded that the Airport looks harder at 
this sort of thing because its in our specific interests to try and 
give the little guy a chance. 

Commissioner Goosby said that Asian, Hispanic and Black businessmen 
see this as being restrictive. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis responded that the last four bids have been 
awarded to viable, small, successful businessmen. 

Commissioner Goosby responded that he knew many people who were not 
qualified because of the low minimum. He sai-d that as a minority 
person he is interested in building up the size of minority 
businesses. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis responded that those businesses were not 
knocked out by majority enterprises. 

Commissioner Goosby argued that they were knocked out because they 
had too much money. 



The following item was removed from calendar. 

3. Surety Payment Policy 

Resolution establishing Surety Payment 
Policy for Airport tenants. 



G. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

The following items were unanimously approved. 

4. Airport Motor Coach Service Agreement - Prequal if ication Documents 

No. 85-0208 Resolution approving the list of 

qualified bidders for the Airport 
Motor Coach Service Agreement. 



Minutes, July 2, 1985, Page 8 



Ms. Gittens said that the prequal if ication documents were due on 
June 7. Documents from eight companies were received and all eight 
companies were shown to be qualified. She said there is a protest by 
a potential bidder who could not meet the deadline and wishes to be 
considered. 

Commissioner Bernstein called on Mr. Nhite to address the Commission. 

Mr. Martin White, representing the Guiton Bus Company, said he has 
been associated with the staff of the Airport for the last twenty 
years . 

Mr. White said he receives most of the Airport bid specifications. 
He said that there was a prebid conference last year and the specs 
went out shortly thereafter. He was not able to attend the prebid 
conference and requested Airport staff send his client a copy of the 
bid specifications. He said that he recently found out that his 
client's San Francisco office is shared with another major bus 
company and indications are that they did not receive the 
specifications. 

Mr. White said that after nine months the new bid specs went out on 
May 10. He said he spoke with staff on a couple of occasions and 
felt that he was going to get a copy of the bid specs. He found out 
the bid specifications were out on the day the pre-qual if ication 
forms were to be submitted. He said that the pre-qual if ication 
document simply required that the bidder state his interest, capacity 
and experience. 

Mr. White said that the Guiton Bus Company is a minority owned 
business, celebrating its 25th anniversary serving Northern 
California. Guiton has IUC permits for all 52 states, and works out 
of the East Bay terminal where it shares office space with Grayline. 
It has routes for Contra Costa County, Alameda County, and Solano 
County and regularly brings people in from those locations on a route 
basis. He said they are a qualified organization with almost 25 
busses available. Many of those busses will meet the criteria and 
they are capable of providing additional busses. 

Mr. White said he did not know how the mixup occured. He said he has 
worked with the Human Rights Commission and with Sandra Crumpler all 
through the years to encourage small business and minority business 
opportunity. He hoped the Commission would allow Guiton to bid on 
this contract. 

Commissioner Goosby asked why they did not receive the second set of 
specifications. 

Ms. Gittens responded that the final specifications for the Motor 
Coach contract were sent unsolicited only to those who attended the 
pre-bid conference or who had indicated an interest during the 
nine-month process since the pre-bid conference. Also, in accordance 
with normal procedure, a notice appeared in the Progress on May 12. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if Guiton was arbitrarily removed from the 
list because they did not attend the first pre-bid conference. 

Ms. Gittens said it was not done arbitrarily. The original list had 
approximately 400 names on it. The final list went to pre-bid 
conference attendees and others who indicated an interest (she used 
SFO Continental Air Transport as an example explaining that there 
were three individuals involved, two of whom had not attended the 
pre-bid conference but had indicated an interest). 



Minutes, July 2, 1985, Page 9 



Commissioner Goosby asked Mr. White if he had been under the 
impression that because he was on the list to get the original specs 
he would have gotten any subsequent specifications that were mailed. 

Mr. White answered that he had been under that impression and that he 
had been in contact with the Airport on a very regular basis. He 
added that the last time he spoke to Airport staff a law suit had 
just cleared the way for the lease and he wanted to make sure he 
received it. 

Commissioner Bernstein said that this has received a lot of publicity 
in the newspapers, on the radio and on television and asked Mr. White 
why someone in his organization did not follow through. 

Mr. White responded that on May 10 he was called to go to Minnesota 
for two weeks. He said he had been in touch with the Airport not 
three weeks before. He assumed that since he was on the mailing list 
and he was talking to people on a regular basis concerning it that he 
would receive the specs. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if there was anyone in his organization 
that would be cognizant of the fact that he had not received the 
specs. He wondered how a business this size could be run where one 
man is so indispensable. 

Commissioner Flei shell asked how many times this item had appeared on 
the Commission's calendar. 

Ms. Gittens responded at least twenty that she could recall. 

Commissioner Fleishell said there have been at least twenty hearings 
on this. On each of those twenty occasions he had noticed in the 
audience at least six bus companies who follow this day to day, hour 
to hour. He said that half of the people in the room today are in 
the bus business. 

Mr. White asked to express just a little bit about his background. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that he did not think that was relevant. 
He said that the issue was why should the Airport change its 
procedures and penalize the folks who followed them in order to open 
the door for other people. 

Mr. White responded that the Airport's procedures states that "...any 
interested parties not included on the Director's listing of eligible 
bidders may appear before the Airports Commission and appeal the 
Director's recommendation in this regard." He said he was following 
procedure. He said that his work on behalf of minority businesses 
and his relationship with the Airport has been something he has done 
out of his own personal need to know that minority business 
opportunities are taken advantage of. He added that there was no 
organization funding him. 

Mr. Harold Hodge said he works for the Guiton Bus Company and had 
talked to Mr. White on different occasions asking where the documents 
were. He said that Mr. White had told him they were coming. 
Mr. Hodge said he talked to Tony Galeaz and was told that they had 
submitted a bid that day. Mr. Hodge called Mr. White with this 
information. Mr. White in turn called the Airport. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked Mr. Hodge who he talked to at the 
Airport. 



Minutes, July 2, 1985, Page 10 



Mr. Hodge responded that he talked to Mr. White who in turn talked to 
Sandra Crumpler and Mr. Lanzilla of the Airport and Ms. Yim of the 
Human Rights Commission. 

Mr. Turpen asked Sandra Crumpler if she recalled the conversation. 

Ms. Crumpler responded no; she had talked to Mr. White regarding the 
parking garage. She said she had not heard from him for almost two 
years. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked Mr. White if he had any notes of the 
conversation. 

Mr. White replied he did not. He said that his conversation with Ms. 
Crumpler about parking garage was at that pre-bid conference. He 
said that his conversation with Ms. Crumpler and Mr. Lanzilla was 
shortly after the suit ended. He said he called to find out about it 
and discussed the Guiton Bus Company with both of them. Mr. White 
said he was not asking for a major variance. He said the form simply 
determines if the company can do the work and if they have the 
financial backing. He said Guiton is a reputable company and he was 
simply asking the Commission to allow them to bid. He said that 
bidding does not presume they will get the contract. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if the 400 people on the first pre-bid 
conference mailing list received the final revision of the specs 
after the second pre-bid conference. 

Ms. Gittens responded that staff did not have a second pre-bid 
conference. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if there was another pre-bid conference 
after revisions had been made to the specifications. 

Ms. Gittens responded that there was a pre-bid conference three years 
ago and a second pre-bid conference last year. The 400 people on the 
list received copies of the specifications that resulted from the 
pre-bid conference held last year. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said that this second pre-bid conference was 
the mass mailing which included this company. 

Commissioner Goosby commented that they did not receive the mailing. 

Mr. White said he called after the pre-bid conference and requested 
the minutes. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked Mr. White who he spoke with on staff. 

Mr. White responded that he spoke with Mr. Lanzilla. He said he did 
receive the minutes to the pre-bid conference. He said he has 
received most other bids and has passed them out to the community and 
encouraged people to participate. 

Commissioner Bernstein said Mr. White seemed to be familiar with 
Airport procedure. He asked if it ever occurred to him in those nine 
months to make some inquiry of the Director of the Airport. 

Mr. White said he talked to Mr. Lanzilla and to Sandra Crumpler. He 
said it may not be in her recent memory but he did talk to her about 
it. 

Mr. Bob Werbe of Grayline said Mr. White's comment about sharing 
office space with Grayline at the Transbay Terminal was not true. 



Minutes, July 2, 1985, Page 11 



Commissioner Goosby said he did not hear Mr. White mention any 
company's name; Mr. White said he shared space with another bus 
company. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said that Mr. White later said Guiton shared 
space with Grayline in the Transbay Terminal. 

Mr. Turpen said that the Commission has the option to waive this or 

not. 

Commissioner Goosby said that this has been a comedy of 
circumstantial errors He asked how many people received the 
pre-qual ifying document. 

Ms. Gittens responded approximately twenty-five. 

Commissioner Goosby said that eight pre-qual ification forms were 
received out of the twenty five. He suggested that the Airport could 
extend the time and notify all those people who were on the list that 
they could submit their pre-qual ifying documents. In that way 
everyone would be afforded the same opportunity that Mr. White was 
asking for the Guiton Bus Company. He said the purpose is to get as 
wide an assortment of firms as possible to bid in order to get the 
best deal for the City. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked what kind of an opportunity are you 
giving the eight that submitted on time. 

Commissioner Goosby responded that whole bids have been thrown out in 
the past and no consideration was given to those people for all the 
time and money they spent to submit their bids. He said the effort 
here is to get "small business" minority participation. 

Commissioner Bernstein said so long as it fits within a set a rules. 

Mr. Tony Ruiz said he was surprised to see Mr. Hodge at the meeting. 
He said Mr. Hodge worked for him for two months. Mr. Ruiz said he 
spoke to Mrs. Guiton and asked her if she was interested in bidding 
and she told him no. Mr. Hodge was in his office at the time the 
qualifying bid came in and he was surprised they didn't do anything 
about it then. 

Mr. Hodge said they were only asking for the opportunity to 
participate in the bid. 

Commissioner Bernstein said they must participate within the rules. 



Design Review Approval: 

"Hosiery and Related Gifts" Shop in the North Terminal Building 

No. 85-0209 Resolution approving the schematic 

design of the new "Hosiery and Related 
Gifts" Shop in the North Terminal 
Bui lding. 



Design Review Approval: 

"Sunglasses Kiosks" in the North Terminal Building 

No. 85-0210 Resolution approving the schematic 

design of the second sunglass kiosk in 
the North Terminal Building. 



Minutes, July 2, 1985, Page 12 



South Terminal Shoeshine Lease - Authorization to Bid 

No. 85-0211 Resolution approving the lease 

document for South Terminal Shoeshine 
lease and authorization to bid. 

Mr. Turpen said this item was based on a minimum annual guarantee. 
He said that staff sent lease documents and notices to over 300 
persons but only three prospective bidders appeared at the pre-bid 
conference. He asked the Commission to authorize staff to proceed. 



The following item was put over. 

8. Resolution Approving Expenditure for Art Work in South Terminal 
Complex - $76,500.00 

As part of the South Terminal Complex 
Art Enrichment Program, the Airport 
Joint Committee has recommended the 
following expenditures: 

1. Award contract to artist Vera 
Kopecek for tapestry at Boarding 
Area A - $74,000. 

2. Storage and insurance costs for 
Larry Kirkland's sculpture. 
Maximum Budget $2,500. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked why the tapestry was so expensive and 
who was looking at the cost of these items. He also wanted to know 
who makes the decisions to spend money. 

Mr. Turpen asked Regina Almaguer of the Art Commission to respond to 
Commissioner Bernstein's questions. 

Ms. Almaguer stated that the Joint Committee, composed of Airport and 
Art Commission staff, had approved the item. She could not speak to 
its cost. 

Commissioner Fleishell requested the Joint Committee prepare a report 
for the Airports Commission. 

Commissioner Bernstein also asked Airport staff to prepare a report. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the item would be put over and a report 
wi 1 1 be prepared. 



The following items were unanimously adopted. 

9. Award of Contract 1782 

Replacement of Defective Roofing at Boarding Area 'A' - Rotunda 
$73,051.00 

No. 85-0212 Resolution awarding Contract 1702 to 

the Bryant Organization in the amount 
of $73,051.00. The budget for the 
recommended work is $80,000. 



Minutes, July 2, 1985, Page 13 



10. Airport Health and Fitness Center 

No. 85-0213 Resolution to approve specifications 

and to authorize staff to hold a 
pre-bid conference for an Airport 
Health Center. 

Mr. Turpen explained that staff wanted to test the market for this 
item. 



The following item was put over. 

11. Professional Services Contract - $31,000.00 

Resolution approving a professional 
service agreement with KMG Main 
Hurdman, CPA, to provide a certified 
appraisal report of the properties of 
the San Francisco International 
Airport as of June 30, 1985 at a cost 
not to exceed $31,000.00. 

Commissioner Fleishell wanted to know who made the consultant 
selection. 

Ms. Gittens responded that a committee consisting of a chief 
accountant, head accountant, and director of financial planning 
reviewed the proposals and evaluated them based on pre-set criteria. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked if the firm was qualified and were they 
members of any professional appraisal association. 

Mr. Turpen suggested that the item be put over and said staff will 
send copies of the proposals to the Commission for their review and 
comment. 



H. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

12. Bid Call - Airport Contract No. 1660 
Silt Removal 1985 

No. 85-0214 Resolution approving the final plans 

and specifications and authorizing the 
Director to call for bids for -Airport 
Contract No. 1660, Silt Removal, 1985 



13. Award of Airport Contract No. 1649 

Cable Replacement - Cable 12TRA-1 and 12BANB-1 

No. 85-0215 Resolution awarding Contract 1649. 

Six bids were received on May 23, 
1985, ranging from $167,060.00 to 
$185,900.00. 



Minutes, July 2, 1985, Page 14 



14. Award of Airport Contract No. 1638 
Emergency Pavement Repairs (1985-86) 

No. 85-0216 Resolution awarding Contract No. 1638 

to McGuire and Hester in the amount of 
$101,191.00. 

Four bids were received on June 6, 
1985, with the bid amounts ranging 
from $101,191.00 to $142,695.00. 

Commissioner Flei shell wanted to know why the pipes were not replaced 
when the pavement project was implemented. 

Dennis Bouey, Deputy Director for Facilities, Operations and 
Maintenance, responded that sometimes they are, but not routinely. 
Staff takes into consideration the setting and theoretical age of the 
pipe. He said that in addition to the pipe replacement program staff 
studies the hydrolysis in order to better predict the situation. 



Award of Airport Contract No. 1631 

Replacement of 10-Inch Effluent Line at Industrial Waste Treatment 

Plant 

No. 85-0217 Resolution awarding Contract No. 1631 

to Golden State Pipeline in the amount 
of $14,000.00. 

Five bids were received on June 18, 
1985, with the bid amounts ranging 
from $14,000.00 to $24,000.00. 



16. Approval of Sublease and Amendment between Trans World Airlines, Inc. 
and Alaska Airlines, Inc. 

No. 85-0218 Resolution approving the Sublease and 

Amendment No. 1 to Sublease Agreement 
of South Terminal facilities between 
Trans World Airlines, Inc. and Alaska 
Airlines, Inc. 



17. Statistical Adjustments for 1984-85 Joint Use Billings under Lease 
and Use Agreement 

No. 85-0219 Resolution adjusting 1984-85 Joint Use 

Billings pursuant to Section T01.W of 
the Airlines Airport Lease and Use 
Agreement, Transamerica Airlines, Inc. 



18. Tenant Improvement: American Airlines 
Air Freight Office Renovation 
Plot 9, T-2996 - $150,000.00 

No. 85-0220 No rental credit. 



Minutes, July 2, 1985, Page 15 



19. Tenant Improvement: Airport Hilton 
Fire Protection System Upgrade 
Plot 2, T-2994 - $750,000.00 

No. 85-0221 No rental credit. 



20. Declaration of Emergency 

Water Main and Pavement Repair 
Airport Contract No. 1 661 A,B 

No. 85-0222 Resolution ratifying the action of the 

President of the Commission in 
declaring the emergency on June 12, 
1985, and authorizing the immediate 
repair of the failed water main and 
asphaltic pavement. 



The following item was put over. 

21. Contract with Asian Art Museum of San Francisco 

Resolution ratifying the action of the 
President of the Commission in 
declaring the emergency on June 12, 
1985, and authorizing the immediate 
repair of the failed water main and 
asphaltic pavement. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked about the cost involved. 

Mr. Turpen suggested putting over item 21 and said staff will prepare 
a report for the next meeting. 



Item 22 was unanimously adopted. 

22. Request for Approval of Travel/Training for Airports Commission 
Representatives. 

No. 85-0223 



I. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion of correspondence by the Commission 



Minutes, July 2, 1985, Page 16 



K. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 9:54 A.M. to go into closed session. 




Acting Commission Secretary 



Minutes, July 2, 1985, Page 17 



r SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 







MINUTES 



DOC ?T. 

DEC | 8 

PUL 



JULY 16, 1985 



DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

WILLIAM K. COBLENTZ 

Vice-President 

DR. Z.L. GOOSBY 

J. EDWARD FLEISHELL 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 



LOUIS A.TURPEN 

Director of Airports 

San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

July 16, 1985 



Calendar 


Agenda 




Section 


Item 


Title 


A. 




CALL TO ORDER: 


B. 




ROLL CALL: 


C. 




DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 



Resolution 
Number 



1 . Status Report on the 

San Francisco Garter Snake 
Study 

2. Operation of a Sixth 
Car Rental Service 

D. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

E. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

3. Contract with Asian Art Museum 

of San Francisco 85-0226 

4. Professional Services 
Contract, KMG Main Hurdman, 
CPA, for Certified Property 

Appraisal Report 85-0227 

5. Resolution Approving Expend- 
iture for Art Work in South 

Terminal Complex $76,500.00 85-0228 

F. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

6. Award of Contract No. 1632 

Emergency Roofing 1985-86 85-0229 

7. Contract 1408-Bid Call 
Weatherproof ing Existing 
Exterior Windows at Board- 
ing Area 'A' Connector 85-0230 

8. Contract 1414AB-Type II 
Modification, Boarding 
Area B Renovation/ South 

Concession Area-$96,968.00 85-0231 



Calendar Agenda Resolution 

Section Item Title Number Page 

9. Professional Service Agree- 
ment - Extension of Time 
Daniel, Mann, Johnson & 
Mendenhall 85-0232 5 

10. Approval of Increased Scope 
of Work for Professional Ser- 
vices Contract with Group 4/ 
Architecture, Research & Plan- 
ning, Inc. - $9,000.00 85-0233 5 

11. Rental Credit for Western 

Air Lines, Inc. 85-0234 5 

12. Tenant Improvement: Conti- 
nental Airlines South Term- 
inal and Boarding Area 'A' 
Leasehold Improvements - 

(T-2967) 85-0235 6 

G. PUBLIC HEARING: 

13. Airport Rules & Regulations: 
Modification Relating to 

Limousine Regulations 6 

H. CORRESPONDENCE: 6 

I. CLOSED SESSION: 3 

J. ADJOURNMENT: 6 



Minutes July 16, 1985, Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

July 16, 1985 



CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:00 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



B. ROLL CALL: 



Present: Morris Bernstein 

Willi am K. Coblentz 

Z. L. Goosby 

J. Edward Fleishell 

Absent: Athena Tsougarakis 



I. CLOSED SESSION: 

The meeting recessed at 9:02 AM to go into closed session and reconvened 
at 9:15 AM. 



A court reporter's transcript of this meeting is attached. 

C . DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

1. Status Report on the San Francisco Garter Snake Study 



Quarterly report on the San Francisco 
Garter Snake Study in Airport's West 
of Bayshore property. 



Minutes July 16, 1985, Page 3 



D. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

There were no items initiated by Commissioners 



E. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 
The following items were unanimously adopted. 

3. Contract with Asian Art Museum of San Francisco 

No. 84-0226 Contract for $30,000 with the Asian 

Art Museum of San Francisco for the 
loan of the Avery Brundage collection 
of fifty-five Indian sculptures, 
mid-November, 1985 through March, 
1986, in conjunction with the Year of 
India. 

4. Professional Services Contract: 

KMG Main Hurdman, CPA, for Certified Property Appraisal Report 

No. 85-0027 Resolution approving a Professional 

Service Agreement with KMG Main 
Hurdman, CPA, to provide a certified 
appraisal report of the properties of 
the San Francisco International 
Airport as of June 30, 1988 at a cost 
not to exceed $31 ,000.00. 

A property appraisal report is 
required by Charter every five years. 
The last appraisal report was made as 
of June 30, 1985. 

5. Resolution Approving Expenditure for Art Work in South Terminal 
Complex - $76,500.00 

No. 85-0228 As part of the South Terminal Complex 

Art Enrichment Program the Airport 
Joint Committee has recommended the 
following expenditures: 

1. Award contract to artist Vera 
Kopecek for tapestry at -Boarding 
Area 'A' - $74,000.00 

2. Storage and insurance costs for 
Larry Kirkland's sculpture - 
maximum budget: $2,500.00. 



Minutes July 16, 1985, Page 4 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

The following items were unanimously adopted. 

6. Award of Contract No. 1632 
Emergency Roofing 1985-86 

No. 85-0229 Resolution awarding Contract No. 1632 

to the Bryant Organization in the 
amount of $45,135.00. 

Two bids were received on June 25, 
1985 with the amounts ranging from 
$45,135.00 to $56,850.00. 



7. Contract 1408 - Bid Call 

Weatherproof inq Existing Exterior Windows at Boarding Area 'A' 
Connector 

No. 85-0230 Resolution approving bid call for 

weatherproof ing the exterior windows 
of the Boarding Area 'A' Connector. 



Contract 1414AB - Type II Modification 

Boarding Area 'B' Renovation/South Concession Area - $96,968.00 

No. 85-0231 Contract modification to provide 

additional work for unforeseen 
conditions, tenant lease areas, and 
deficiencies in plans and 
specifications. 



9. Professional Service Agreement - Extension of Time 
Daniel, Mann, Johnson & Mendenhall 

No. 85-0232 Extension of time for Professional 

Services Agreement with Daniel, Mann 
Johnson & Mendenhall for the design 
and construction of South Terminal 
aircraft aprons, Phase I - no change 
in the contract cost. 



10. Approval of Increased Scope of Work for Professional Services 
Contract with Group 4/Archi tecture, Research & Planning, Inc. - 
$9,000.00 

No. 85-0233 Resolution approving Amendment No. 2 

to include architectural and 
engineering services for the- design 
and construction of an outside public 
seating area and the shoeshine 
facilities in the West Entrance 
Building. Total Budget: $9,000.00 



1 1 . Rental Credit for Western Air Lines, Inc. 

No. 85-0234 Resolution approving rental credit for 

Western Air Lines, Inc. in the amount 
of $1,100.00 due to power failure. 



Minutes July 16, 1985, Page 5 



12. Tenant Improvement: 

Continental Airlines South Terminal and Boarding Area 'A' 
Leasehold Improvements - (T-2967) 

No. 85-0235 Construction of Continental Airlines' 

Ticket Office, Ticket Counters, 
Baggage and Operations Offices, V.I. P. 
Room and the installation of a baggage 
system and holdroom equipment, 
$997,000.00. No cost to Airport. 



PUBLIC HEARING: 

13. Airport Rules & Regulations: 

Modification Relating to Limousine Regulations 



Public hearing on proposed modifi- 
cation of the Airport Rules and 
Regulations to bring them into con- 
formance with provisions of the new 
Limousine Lease regarding pre-regis- 
tration of the off-Airport limousines 
picking up pre-arranged passengers. 



* * * * 



H. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission, 



* * * * 



J. ADJOURNMENT: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 10:04 A.M. 




-<(JTk 



an Caramatti 
mmission Secretary 



Minutes July 16, 1985, Page 6 



MEETING OF THE AIRPORTS COMMISSION 



IN AND FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



OOO 



SAN. FRANCISCO CITY HALL, ROOM 282 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 



Tuesday, July 16, 1985, 9:20 a.m. 



Taken Before CHARLOTTE CERVANTEZ 
Notary Public in and for the County of Alameda 
State of California 
C.S.R. License No. 4486 

. : ■ .' ■"• - i;Ah*'' 

BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 278-8009 



SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORTS COMMISSIONERS 

HONORABLE MORRIS BERNSTEIN, President 

HONORABLE WILLIAM K. COBLENTZ, Vice-President 

HONORABLE DR. Z.L. GOOSBY, Commissioner 

HONORABLE J. EDWARD FLEISHELL, Commissioner 

LOUIS A. TURPEN, Director of Airports 

DONALD GARIBALDI, Airport General Counsel 

JEAN CARAMATTI, Airports Commission Secretary 



PUBLIC HEARING 

AIRPORT RULES AND REGULATIONS 
Modification Relating to Limosine Regulations 

Audience Speakers Page 

JERRY HADDOCK 9 

ROBERT WHITE 11 

ANDREW FENYES 19 

SKIP HOUSE 22 

BETTY ROSE 25 

JOE WEEKS 28 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 278-8009 



PROCEEDINGS 

MR. TURPEN: Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for 
bearing with us during the closed session. The Airports 
Commission was discussing pending litigation matters with its 
outside counsel. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Mr. Turpen, do you want the 
Director's Reports? 

MS. CARAMATTI: Item 1, Status Report on the 
San Francisco Garter Snake Study. 

MR. TURPEN: The report is self-explanatory, sir. 
The study which the Commission has authorized on the western bay 
shore property will continue through the end of the year as 
authorized by the Commission at their December 11th, 1984 
meeting. At the end of that time hopefully we will have 
sufficient information to develop any mitigation measures 
necessary for the western bay shore property. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: All right, next? 

MS. CARAMATTI: Item 2, Operation of a Sixth Car 
Rental Service. 

MR. TURPEN: Once again, this report is direct; we 
had four companies, off-airport companies, that asked us to bid 
a sixth rental car concession agreement. The airport sent 
notices to 55 companies, including the four that had 
specifically requested a pre-bid conference. No one showed up, 
including the four, and therefore I suggest that we not pursue 
this matter and consider it closed. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: That's item 2. 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 278-8009 



MR. TURPEN: Yes, sir. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: All right, thank you. 

Miss Caramatti, next? 

MS. CARAMATTI: Items Initiated by Commissioners. 

Anything? 

No, sir. 

Anything? 
MR. TURPEN: No, sir. 
MR. BERNSTEIN: How about Items for Administration, 



MR. BERNSTEIN 
MR. FLEISHELL 
MR. BERNSTEIN 



Item 3? 



MS. CARAMATTI: That's item 3, contract with Asian 
Art of San Francisco. 

MR. COBLENTZ: I move that item of the contract be 
approved. 

MR. FLEISHELL: Second. 

MR. GOOSBY: I just have a question. Do you know if 
part of the budget that we're going to fund, the budget of 
$30,000, a portion of it, if it called for the labor of trained 
museum technicians to work on the construction? Do you know if 
those people are taken from our Civil Service bureaus, or are 
they private employees of the agent architect? 

MR. TURPEN: I'd have to check on that. 

Regina, do you know? 

MS. ALMAQUER: I didn't hear the question. 

MR. TURPEN: There's $3800 in labor for the Indian 
sculpture from the Asian Art Musuem. They talk about trained 
museum technicians to work at the airport and trained museum 
technicians to construct sculpture supports. Are those Civil 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 27 8-80 09 



Service classifications in the museum? 

MS. ALMAQUER: They do have classifications. I 
don't know if the workers would come from that. We'd have to 
check on that. 

MR. TURPEN: I believe they might be civil. I can 
check on that and let you know. 

MR. GOOSBY: Yes, I'd like to know, because it's an 
excellent opportunity and honor, whether they have a training 
program for the operation, whether we have any influence over, 
or whether The City has any influence, or whether this is 
strictly an Asian Art private employee, I'd like to know. 

MR. TURPEN: I see. Okay, sir. 

MR. GOOSBY: Thanks. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Just one comment, Lou. I hear from 
everyone about those at the airport or arrive at the airport of 
the fabulous exhibits we have there now. Isn't there any way of 
getting a little publicity so more people will hear of it, see 
it? 

MR. TURPEN: Yes, sir, matter of fact, something 
we're looking into right now, and I can have a report for the 
Commission at the next meeting if you'd like, kind of an outline 
our programas far as increasing our publicity. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: I think there are eight... nine... 
ten exhibits throughout the airport. 

MR. TURPEN: Yes, sir. 

MR. GOOSBY: And maybe the newspapers will cooperate 
with that free, without us paying for it. It helps The City. 

MR. TURPEN: I ' d be delighted to check on that and 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 27 8-8009 



report at the next meeting. 

Excuse me, yes sir? 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Try to give that some attention. 

MR. TURPEN: Yes, sir, I will. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Next? 

MS. CARAMATTI: We need a vote on the commission. 

Commissioner Burnstein? 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Yes. 

MS. CARAMATTI: Commissioner Coblentz? 

MR. COBLENTZ: Aye. 

MS. CARAMATTI: Commissioner Goosby? 

MR. GOOSNER: Aye. 

MS. CARAMATTI: Commissioner Fleishell? 

MR. FLEISHELL: Aye. 

MS. CARAMATTI: Item 4, Professional Services 
Contract KMG Main Hurdman, CPA for Certified Property Appraisal 
Report. 

MR. FLEISHELL: Second. 

MR. TURPEN: This item was pulled from the last 
meeting. I trust the Commission's concerns in this matter have 
been resolved, or answered anyway. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Right. Same vote. 

MS. CARAMATTI: Item 5, Resolution Approving 
Expenditure for Art Work in South Terminal Complex $76,500. 

MR. COBLENTZ: I'll move this. I wasn't here at the 
last meeting. I understand that the Jason Yuen has forwarded to 
you a report on this. 

Let me say as a member of the Committee represeting 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 278-8009 



the airport, we reviewed a number of tapestries. This happened 
to be the cheapest, but we didn't choose it because it was the 
cheapest; we thought it was the most meritorious, the most 
artistic. We didn't look at the... what went into it, but we 
did know that it's going to take approximately one year for this 
woman to complete this work of art. We think it's handsome. We 
think it enriches the airport, and it was unanimously 
approved — Jason Yuen, Howard Friedman and myself represeting 
the airport along with the three representatives of the Art 
Commission — it was unanimous. 

MR. GOOSBY: Do you have the picture of it that she 
had? 

MR. COBLENTZ: Yes. 

MR. YUEN: Do you want to see it now? 

MR. GOOSBY: Yes. 

MR. YUEN: It's basically a tapestry like this but a 
cross between this and that. It's a small one like this, in 
this shape (indicating). 

MR. GOOSBY: But those aren't the figures? 

MR. YUEN: No. It's generally this color pattern, 
with all kinds of different colors. 

MR. GOOSBY: Geometric design rather than a figure. 

MR. YUEN: Yes. 

MR. COBLENTZ: Um-hum. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Is this the one we postponed last 



week? 



MR. TURPEN: It is, yes. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Are you saying you and Howard went 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 278-8009 



over it? 


7 


MR. 


COBLENTZ: Jason, Howard and I sat on the 


committee, we reviewed all of the submissions, and we were 


unanimous on our choice. 


MR. 


BERNSTEIN: I thought the tapestries were scenic 


and I thought we might be able to see them. 


Next? Oh, question? 


MS. 


CARAMATTI: Is there a vote? 


Commissioner Burnstein? 


MR. 


BERNSTEIN: Yes. 


MS. 


CARAMATTI: Commissioner Coblentz? 


MR. 


COBLENTZ: Yes. 


MS. 


CARAMATTI: Commissioner Goosby? 


MR. 


GOOSBY: Yes. 


MS. 


CARAMATTI: Commissioner Fleishell? 


MR. 


FLEISHELL: Yes. I move the consent. 


MR. 


COBLENTZ: Second. 


MR. 


TURPEN: No comment. 


MR. 


BERNSTEIN: Same vote. 


Now 


, next we have the general . You can call 


that, Miss Caramatti, 


MR. 


TDRPEN: Public Hearing. 


MS. 


CARMATTI: We have Item 13, Public Hearing, 


Airport Rules and Regulations, Modification Relating to Limosine 


Regulations. 




MR. 


COBLENTZ: The item, for the purpose of bringing 


it before the commission rules, it's adopted. 


MR. 


TURPEN: As the commission is aware, for the 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 278-8009 



8 

benefit — 

MR. FLEISHELL: I second it. 

MR. TURPEN: For the benefit of the audience, the 
Airports Commission by its rules typically conducts a public 
hearing on any changes to its rules and regulations; it accepts 
public testimony with respect to those rules — potential 
changes in the rules and regulations; deliberates that 
testimony; and will at a subsequent meeting, more than likely 
the first meeting in August, first commission meeting in August, 
which would be the first Tuesday in August, will then consider 
and vote upon those changes to the rules and regulations. 

There will be no decision made by the Airports 
Commission today. The Commission's purpose in conducting a 
public hearing is to solicit public testimony. The Commission 
also by its rules requires that speakers to any issue of public 
testimony maintain their remarks at three minutes or less and 
would really appreciate, if someone has made the point you want 
to make, your giving your time to someone else who might have a 
new point to make. 

With that, I'd like to just briefly introduce the 
subject for the Airports Commission. As the commission's aware, 
a new limosine service lease was awarded Associated Limosines of 
San Francisco, and that lease is scheduled to go into effect in 
the next... probably in the next 60 days. It is an exclusive 
lease, and in order to protect exclusivity of Associated, the 
airport has developed some procedural changes to its rules and 
regulations to insure that that exclusivity can be protected. 

Specifically, this requires, during periods in which 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 278-8009 



the booths are open at the lower level of each of the terminal 
facilities, that limosine operators desiring to pick up clients 
have their waybill time stamped at the limosine location. In 
the event that the limosine desk is closed, then off-airport 
limosine persons could go directly to the gate and pick up their 
party, as very much is the case today. 

These changes are being recommended to improve our 
current situation, to give it a little more structure, to 
protect the exclusivity of the operator that bid and was 
successful in competing for the on-airport limosine services. 
With that I will turn it over to the Commission President for 
any comments the audience might have. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Are there any comments on the part 
of the Commission at this time? 

Mr. Haddock, you were asked to be heard on the 
airport limosines. 

MR. HADDOCK: My name is Jerry Haddock, I'm the 
Executive Vice-President with Airport Limosine. I have to 
apologize a little bit for not meeting the normal criteria of 
the limosine operator/owners; I don't wear white socks and I 
didn't drive a cab prior to this time. 

My background has basically been in labor relations 
for Consolidated Freightways and Vice-President of Burlington 
Northern and a President of Delta Lines. My labor experience 
has created somewhat of a problem for me inasmuch as addressing 
the issue of the designated loading zone and so forth that is 
described in the proposal. 

I guess my labor relations background has always led 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 278-8009 



10 

me to be somewhat suspicious when you enter into negotiations, 
such as we did on all the language, and up until six weeks ago, 
both Associated and the staff were very adamant that you would 
not have representatives in the airport, and that everyone had 
to register at their desk. Then they turn around and do the 
exact opposite and agree with the initial proposal that we had, 
which was that we needed to have representatives inside the 
airport because of our amount of volume that we handle there. 

We stand ready to support the language as it is 
written currently, as long as the true spirit and intent that is 
in there is that we have the right to meet our reserve 
customers, and we do no soliciting, and that we are allowed to 
pick up in the same location that Associated Limosine will, and 
that that designated loading zone as described in there does not 
end up being at Tanforan Shopping Center, as an example. So, 
with that, if there's anyone who has any questions, or if you 
want me to address something else, I would be happy to do so. 

MR. TURPEN: Thank you. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Haddock. 

MR. FLEISHELL: I have one question at this point. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Yes. 

MR. FLEISHELL: It's will we have one loading zone 
at each terminal for the use of all limosine operators? 

MR. TURPEN: Sheldon will respond on that. 

MR. FEIN: The loading zone under this proposal is 
the same exact loading zone as we currently have. When the 
limosine operator brings their party out to the curb with their 
baggage, then they bring the vehicle around from the garage and 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 278-8009 



11 

park in front of the building in any white zone, just to 
actively load and unload the passengers. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: A regular white zone, right? 

MR. GOOSBY: A regular white zone. 

MR. FEIN: Yes, the same as any passenger car. And 
that portion of the rule is absolutely unchanged from what we 
have today. 

MR. FLEISHELL: So, the exclusive operator will use 
the same loading zone as the person from whom we obtain no 
money. Right? 

MR. FEIN: That's correct. 

MR. FLEISHELL: Okay, just so it's clear. 

MR. TURPEN: Thank you. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Mr. Robert White from Feldman, 
Waldman & Kline. 

MR. WHITE: Mr. Burnstein and Members of the 
Commission, I represent in my office 19 limosine operators who 
in response to the initial set of regulations along with 
approximately a hundred others attended a meeting with the 
Airport Commission Staff, the result of which has been some 
significant changes with the proposed regulation, and we 
appreciate their cooperation. 

I'd like to take this opportunity to set some public 
records clarifications we obtained at our last meeting with the 
Staff and express one reservation that we have regarding the 
Commission's authority to regulate off-airport limosine 
operations. In just the same light, my clients are acquiescing 
in this regulatory proposal. In the long run it seems suporting 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 278-8009 



12 

it would be my concern regarding jurisdictions. 

In terms of specifics regarding the implementation 
of this proposal, at the last meeting with the Airport Staff, it 
was understood that curb meets would not be affected by this 
regulation. Specifically a situation where a client, or one of 
my clients, says "I'm in a hurry, I don't want to go through a 
whole lot, I'll meet you at the curb ten minutes after my flight 
arrives. " 

At the last meeting of the Staff, I understood 
Mr. Ephanio of the Staff to state that the regulation would not 
apply to the curb meet situation I've just described. We have 
one suggestion with regard to the proposed regulation that we'd 
like the Commission to consider. As proposed, the regulation 
requires an operator to come to the airport, march up to one of 
the areas manned by Associated, and put a waybill into a time 
machine, the purpose for which apparently is to determine what 
time that operator arrived at the airport. 

We would propose that a less intrusive means of 
accomplishing the same end would be to allow of f-the-airport 
operators to rely on the airport parking system's time date 
stamp machine to provide the evidence of the time of their 
arrival. In other words, in the majority of instances, other 
than the curb meet that I've just described, an operator would 
come into the garage, and as a matter of course would have to 
get a stamped ticket indicating the time of their arrival. 

We would ask that the Commission consider using that 
as evidence of the operator's arrival time, instead of requiring 
the operator to arrive, park, go to the Associated booth, stamp, 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 27 8-8009 



13 

and then proceed to return. Our reason for proposing this is 
essentially a matter of efficiency, in order to allow our 
clients to meet theirs in a timely fashion. 

MR. FLEISHELL: Mr. White, did you propose that at 
your meeting with staff? 

MR. WHITE: Yes, sir. 

MR. FLEISHELL: What was their response? 

MR. WHITE: Their response was that they regarded 
having a single document, a waybill or a single ticket with a 
time stamp on it, as a more efficient means of policing the 
situation that they're concerned with. I happen to disagree, 
but that was the statement made. 

MR. COBLENTZ: Sheldon, what's your reaction to 
that? 

MR. FEIN: We had a long discussion on this, and 
there is a problem with having a garage ticket and a separate 
waybill which is not stamped; and it's hard to enforce a 
combination of the two documents, because we could have 
different people coming from the garage at different times and 
asking to take it back and forth. Whereas if you walk into the 
building and actually time stamp that one document, you do have 
more control over it. We did look into and consider that as one 
of the alternatives. 

MR. WHITE: With all respect, my problem with that 
is that the person who's clever enough to accomplish that can do 
the same thing with the waybills. So, in terms of efficiency, 
we would ask the commission to consider the alternative that has 
been proposed. 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 278-8009 



14 

Another point of clarification I'd like to make at 
the meeting is: My impression is that the time stamping machine 
would not be recording the number of stampings that take place. 
That is, no attempt would be made — and my clients are 
concerned — about the confidential nature of their business. 
They wouldn't want to be in a position that every time they're 
stamping in, that the number of times that such an event occurs 
would be being recorded. I'd like to ask the staff to make a 
clarification of that. 

MR. FEIN: We will just have simple time stamps out 
there. There will be no recording of the number of stampings. 

MR. WHITE: Thank you. The final matter I'd like to 
address is a matter of the Commission's intent in terms of 
regulating the problem of piracy. One of the problems that I've 
had, and my clients, in trying to respond to this particular 
proposal is trying to understand exactly what it's to 
accomplish. 

In listening to Mr. Turpen's opening remarks, I 
understand that what's being done is to protect the interest of 
the lessee — that is, the lessee has an exclusive right to meet 
customers in the airport — that the purpose of this regulation 
is intended to protect the lessee's exclusivity. On other 
occasions we've heard explanations of the regulatory structure 
as parking control, safety regulations and the like. 

One of the problems we have had in trying to address 
the various regulations is that we do not have a clear 
understanding of what the Commission is attempting to 
accomplish; that is, we hear, in our discussions with the staff 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 278-8009 



15 

"piracy is an evil, we want to do something about piracy," but 
what we don't get is an understanding of what's attempted to be 
accomplished. 

In conversation with Associated, it's our impression 
that Associated is not concerned with it's exclusivity relative 
to pirates. We may be mistaken in that regard, but one of the 
ways in which we can attempt to meet the concerns of the staff 
and our own concerns is if we know what the Commission as a body 
is trying to do with this kind of regulation. 

I hope I'm not out of line in asking for a statement 
of policy on I on it, but in terms of the Commission's future 
intentions as well as in trying to understand what's being 
proposed, it would be extremely helpful to our clients and I 
think to other operators situated like my clients to know 
exactly what the evil is the Commission is trying to address. 
With that I close my remarks and thank you for your attention. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you. Any comment, anything 
further? 

All right, the next, Mr. Fenyes, of The Associated 
Limosine of San Francisco, would like to be heard. 

MR. FENYES: My name is Andrew Fenyes, General 
Manager of Associated Limosines in San Francisco. Throughout 
the discussions that were pertinent to the procedures at the 
airport, Associated Limosines has not objected to any of the 
procedures that were brought up. The only one that we have 
objected to right from the start was the allowance of company 
representatives by the various limosine companies on premises at 
the airport. 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 278-8009 



16 

The reason we have objected to it, and in two 
private meetings that I have had with airport staff we objected 
to this particular inclusion, was due to the fact that we feel 
this cannot properly be controlled by Associated Limosine and 
its staff at the airport, and we feel that judging by problems 
that we have had in the past, it will probably not be controlled 
properly by the airport either. 

We feel that this type of representation by the 
other companies can be severely abused. We feel this could very 
strongly cut into our operations at the airport if it is not 
controlled. 

MR. COBLENTZ: Excuse me for a moment. 

Sheldon, what's your response to that? I mean, 
these people have been the high bidders. We have given them a 
so-called quote "exclusive." How do we protect in some way that 
exclusivity for which they've paid substantial consideration? 

MR. FEIN: Well, first of all, from the meeting of 
June 20th — which was the second meeting where we've gone 
through all the input of the different companies — at that 
meeting we did not get any negative input in the package from 
Associated, and we haven't been contacted since that point in 
time by Associated about the points that he just brought up. 

However, the problem comes about when you have a 
limosine company that has prearranged passengers that may come 
in at two different terminals. In other words, they may be 
handling a convention or whatever, and they're putting together 
a group. One of the people coming in on the airline is in the 
south terminal, and one comes in from the north terminal. 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 278-8009 



17 

At this point in time the procedure says that if the 
driver has his waybill, he goes in and let's say picks up the 
person at the south terminal. A company representative would 
also have a waybill, would also have to have a time stamp, would 
have the name of the individual they're picking up in the other 
terminal building, and pick that individual up. 

So, be it a driver or a representative of the 
company, they would have to have a waybill with the name of the 
airlines, the gate number, the time of the flight, everything; 
and we would have the same control over any representative of a 
company picking up a person as if the actual driver of the 
vehicle went out there. So, we think that we have control over 
any company representative that may be in the building, and they 
do have people coming in in different buildings at the same time 
for the group loading. 

MR. FENYES: Okay, if I may answer why Associated 
did not object to these: Associated Limosine objected to this 
particular inclusion on at least three occasions. I was the 
person who was objecting to this personally. I've had meetings 
with Mr. Fein, I've had meetings with Mr. Ephanio, I've had 
meetings with Mr. Gregory, and I've even had meetings with 
Airport Limosine. 

In all of these meetings we have severely objected 
to this one point. In the initial stages this point was also 
including uniformed agents for these companies. The uniform 
part has been dropped, however the rest of it has been added in. 
Now, at the last Airport Staff meeting, this particular point 
was brought up only once to my knowledge; and at that time I 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 278-8009 



18 

understood this to be representatives allowed in the situation 
where a large group arrives all at once on a special occasion 
where it cannot be handled by any other means but to have a 
company representative who would distribute these people. Not 
on a regular basis. 

I feel that if this was allowed on a regular basis 
that it would severely be abused. I don't see any way of 
getting out from under it, and therefore I'm still objecting to 
it. However, even under objection I feel that if the Airport 
Commission sees fit to allow this to be in the document and to 
be allowed — to allow the other companies to do this, we can 
go along with it providing that we get substantial guarantees 
from the airport that this would be properly supervised so that 
it will not be abused. 

As for not being able to object, this particular 
document that is in my hand, due to some errors, arrived in my 
office Friday afternoon; at which time I called, Friday at 
approximately 3:00 o'clock, the Airport Staff, finding out that 
this was even in existence; and it was given to one of our 
dispatchers and was sent to me at 6:00 Friday afternoon. So, I 
had no real way of knowing about it. 

MR. COBLENTZ: Well, I think this is not a final 
hearing of any of this, and I think your reservations should be 
taken into consideration and we'll review it. 

MR. GOOSBY: I think the whole thing could be passed 
with a three-month or a four-month evaluation to see if 
changes — 

MR. COBLENTZ: Yes. 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 27 8-8009 



19 

MR. GOOSBY: — could be made after a trial period. 

Lou, I had a question for those limosine companies 
that have a problem with a person who says "Pick me up at the 
arrival area, north terminal. I'll be there, I'll be out in 
front, get me at 11:30." 

Now, in our present procedure where he still has to 
park, even though he knows the person is going to be out in 
front at the arrival area, does he still have to park in the 
garage and so forth? In our present procedure? 

MR. TURPEN: Sheldon will know. 

MR. GOOSBY: What's the procedure now under this? 

MR. FEIN: The operation that we have is that no 
vehicle is allowed to park and wait in the white zones in front 
of the building. 

MR. GOOSBY: Well, wait; I told you, suppose he 
doesn't have to wait, he's there? 

MR. FEIN: If a person is out in front of the 
building at a prearranged time with his luggage, any limosine 
can drive up and pick up their prearranged fare in front of the 
building and does not even have to go into the garage. 

MR. GOOSBY: Without a waybill or something like 
that. 

MR. FEIN: That's correct. And again that procedure 
stays the same, because the person is waiting out at the curb. 
You don't have somebody in the building with a potential to 
pirate. So, as long as the person is out at the curb with his 
luggage, the limosine can drive up and pick that person up. 

MR. GOOSBY: Okay. 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 278-8009 



20 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Well, there are no other speakers, 
so, I guess, what is the next procedure? Take this under 
consideration or — 

MR. TURPEN: Yes, sir, the Commission should close 
the public hearing, and the Commission Staff would both have an 
opportunity to consider the comments made, discuss them, and 
this matter will come before the commission again in April — 
or, excuse me, in August. 

MR. GOOSBY: How do we move that the hearings be 
closed, then? 

MR. TURPEN: Excuse me, excuse me, there's a 
gentleman. 

MR. LONG: Excuse me, I'm sorry, I didn't get to 
make out a piece of paper. 

My name is George Long, I'm the Corporate Secretary, 
Golden State Limosine. I've be in the limosine business now for 
about 18 years. Gentlemen, we have 3000 passengers a month that 
come into San Francisco Airport. We have to have company 
representatives on airport property in order to meet these 
folks, because they're coming in at all three terminals at the 
same time. The drivers have no way of knowing who's going to be 
in their car until the people are there. Then they leave with 
their passengers and group them accordingly. 

With 3000 passengers a month we couldn't possibly 
have a driver running around backwards and forwards trying to 
pick up passengers. Basically that's all I want to say, is that 
we need company representatives on ground. You did not give his 
lease to Associated Limosine in order that they could pirate our 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 278-8009 



21 

business. 

MR. COBLENTZ : Did you bid on this? 

MR. LONG: Yes, we did. 

MR. COBLENTZ: Thank you. 

MR. LONG: Yes, we did. 

MR. COBLENTZ: Okay. 

MR. LONG: However, if we left it up to the drivers 
to meet our passengers, we would lose over two-thirds of our 
business in the first month. 

MR. GOOSBY: Well, the company representatives have 
provided by the multiple — 

MR. LONG: From what I understand, the company 
representative has to stamp his little card? 

MR. GOOSBY: Yes. 

MR. LONG: The company representative is going to 
be — We figure on having a company representative for each 
terminal, because with a hundred passengers a day coming in, 
we've got 35 in any terminal at any given time. Now, this man 
can't possibly run around stamping his little cards. He's got a 
computer list ten pages long showing who we pick up where, and 
where they're going. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Did you make your objections noted, 
or did you ask for clarification? 

MR. COBLENTZ: Yes, Sheldon will. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Sheldon, will you — 

MR. FEIN: We've had, again, in the meetings that 
we've held, we've had that input and we've responded to it; that 
if the representative has a computerized list, then as long as 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 278-8009 



22 

that lists contains the same information we're talking about — 
the person's name they're picking up, the airline, the time it's 
coming in, the flight number and so forth, all that 
information — then the representative can go up and time stamp 
that list. He is covered for all the passengers coming in 
within the next hour. Then if he is picking up another group 
the next hour, he has to go back and again time stamp. And we 
have that representative who's to specific people with names and 
definite information about them. 

MR. TURPEN: Thank you, Sheldon. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you. 

MR. LONG: Thank you. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Well, I think that concludes the — 

Now, tell me, why didn't you gentlemen fill out 
these forms? 

MR. HOUSE: I was never given a form, and there was 
nobody out there. And I was here at 9:00 clock but — 

MR. COBLENTZ: Well, I suggest we hear from this 
gentleman, and then the hearing is closed. 

MR. HOUSE: I think anyone here that wants to speak 
should have the right to speak, sir. 

MR. COBLENTZ: Well, you're speaking, go ahead with 
it. 

MR. HOUSE: Well, I have a few points to make. I'm 
Skip House I'm with Carrey of Nob Hill Limosine Service. And 
I'll just the points out just for food for thought. It was 
mentioned protection going to Associated' s agreement and the 
contract with the Airport Commission. I understand that. But I 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 278-8009 



23 

feel the Airport Commission should provide the same type of 
protection for all servicers who service the airport, which is 
serving the general public. 

Second, I feel that the first thought should be the 
clients, the people who come to San Francisco and leave 
San Francisco. That should be our main concern. In order for 
limosine drivers such as most of us to cater to our clients, we 
have to give a service. Anything that disrupts that service is 
a hindrance to our production and performance for these clients. 

Consequently, most of us are professional enough to 
do a decent, good job. There are a few people abusing the 
privileges, I understand that. None of us like it. There can 
be controls of those people. We have P.U.C. permits, we are 
licensed, we are insured, we're are trained. There's controls 
on all of those things. 

For people who come in that don't play the game, 
don't do the job the way their supposed to, we can spot them. 
If we have a place to go with them, then we can control them. 

Also, we don't get cooperation at the airport, from 
the police or anyone else. That's something to consider. I'm 
talking about not necessarily the police officers but the, I 
don't know what they call them, meter maids or whatever. There 
should be a change there. I think the people who bid for this 
and got the bid fairly — I don't even know if my employer bid 
or not — but I feel that they do need some protections, and I 
think we all need that same protection. 

It might be noted that we get a lot of calls from 
Butler Aviation to pick up a client. He says go over to the 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 278-8009 



24 

airport, we're going to pick up so-and-so. You can't very well 
run and get a pass, permit, ticket, whatever this requirement is 
intended to be, with a situation such as that. He may say come 
here, I'm going to run in and get the guy, he should be here 
right now. 

There's where we lose control of our service to our 
client. We go off somewhere, they're running around looking for 
us, we're looking for them. The police officer there is rushing 
you off to get out of the road. I literally have been told to 
drive around while I had a client in the car and half the 
luggage in the car — more than once; and I bet you that's 
happened to almost everybody in this room — because a policeman 
will come up and have us move. 

Associated doesn't have that problem because they 
always have their little spot. And that's fine. I don't knock 
it. We park our car, meet our clients at the gate now. But if 
we get our clients at P.S.A. — that's not a good example, say 
Eastern, and United is where the stand is, we'd have to go to 
United, go down to Eastern. 

Also, I said something about names, give them the 
name on the card. I don't think any service here would like to 
give the name of their particular clients — 

MR. COBLENTZ: They're not going to, they're not 
going to. 

MR. FLEISHELL: That's not required. 

MR. COBLENTZ: That's not required. 

MR. HOUSE: Fine, I appreciate that. I did hear 
that the name was mentioned. As I said, this one gentleman just 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 278-8009 



25 

said here that the volume there, one company cannot handle. 
Five companies cannot handle it. Ten companies can't handle it. 
It takes all of us together, to work together, to get the job 
done. And when we put barriers, it makes our job harder, it 
causes dissension amongst ourselves, against Associated or 
whoever got the contract. We don't want that, and I'm sure that 
you don't want that. 

We want to give you good service. The airport's 
beginning to look nice. You're spending thousands of dollars to 
improve the looks of it; let's improve the service of it. Ours 
is one of the services. Thank you. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you. 

MR. COBLENTZ: I move the hearing be closed. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Just a minute. 

MR. COBLENTZ: I'm sorry. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Yes? 

MS. ROSE: May I speak? I didn't have a chance to 
fill out a slip. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Can't hear that. What? 

MR. COBLENTZ: She'd like to speak. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Fine, but you're the last one, 
because the meeting is going to be closed. 

MR. HOUSE: What's the rush? 

MR. BERNSTEIN: We gave everyone an opportunity to 
do that, and we will take it under consideration. 

MR. HOUSE: What's the rush here? 

MR. WHITE: What's the rush? 

MR. COBLENTZ: If anyone wants to speak, fill out an 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 278-8009 



26 

application now. 

SPEAKER FROM AUDIENCE: Where are they? 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Up at the front. 

MR. COBLENTZ: And please don't r we asked — 

Oh, you don't need to fill that one out, if it's 
repetitious, please. 

MS. ROSE: I'm Betty Rose, and I represent Flynn 
Limo and Charter Service. Now, we feel that this proposal is 
very unfair to the smaller companies. We couldn't bid in this — 
We're not allowed to bid because of the money that's involved 
in this, and we're not interested in doing activities that's 
going to protect the profit for another company. 

Now, we have our own business to take care of. we 
go to the airport, we meet our passengers at the gate. This 
doesn't have anything to do with the protection of them and 
their exclusivity, doesn't have anything to do with our gate, 
meeting our passengers. These are people that you're talking 
about that are hustling the airport. This has nothing to do 
with people who are legitimately going out there to pick up 
their own passengers. 

Now, we feel that there should be some other methods 
worked out for their protection. And second, none of the 
companies are in charge of other companies. As each one of us 
get our license from the P.U.C., we have our own rights, albeit 
our own company, within the realm of that license. And we are 
not responsive to another company's having authority over us, 
nor do we wish to give up our passenger names to anybody else. 

We don't know how the airport would intend to 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 278-8009 



27 

protect our rights from our competitor, who would be Associated; 
how would you protect, for an instance, Associated* s taking one 
of our customers or one of the other company's customers. And I 
notice in one of the proposals it mentioned that if you miss 
your customer, then Associated would inform you that that 
customer is there. And you know, how would we count on this, 
how would we know this would be done? What protection would the 
airport be willing to give us? 

Second, we don't feel that just because the airport 
makes a contract with one limosine company that they have any 
right to bind the rest of us by any terms of that agreement. 
We're not included in the bidding, were not included in the 
contract. And I think if you — If they were trying to be fair 
about the whole thing, they could have a holding line for all 
the the limosine companies where each member — each type of 
transportation could be in that holding lot, the airport could 
charge a couple of dollars for them to sit there, and then they 
could all have their rights to have walk-up passengers in there. 
They could shuttle people there, let the people choose. But in 
any case, we should have our own right to make our own pickup. 

This thing would be costly to us. It would cost our 
people time. And second, we'd have to be paying our drivers 
more money just to go in that airport to have time to go through 
with these changes and procedures. 

One last point I'd like to make is that Associated, 
in getting this contract with the airport, does not become a 
representative of the airport. They are merely a service 
contract, providing a service to the airport. So, they are in 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 278-8009 



28 

no way — we are in no way responsive to them at all. They 
don't become our superiors and represent the airport as far as 
the other drivers — the other limosine companies are concerned. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you. 

MS. ROSE: Thank you. 

MR. WEEKS: I just filled out one of your slips. 
Can I talk here? 

MR. FLEISHELL: Certainly ... be here all day. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Fine. 

MR. WEEKS: Well, you know, we're going to be at the 
airport all day if we get this thing passed the way you're 
talking about. 

MR. COBLENTZ : You want to come on up? 

MR. WEEKS: Yeah. Sure. We spend here — Anybody 
here in the service knows that it takes, from the San Jose area, 
maybe 45 minutes to pick your customer up, 45 minutes to get him 
back. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: What is your name, sir? 

MR. WEEKS: My name is Joe Weeks, and I'm with 
Le Grande Affair Limosine Service in San Jose. Now, everybody 
here knows that it's a very competitive service, and it takes a 
half hour to an hour extra to pick up a customer from the 
airport, just because we have to find them, their planes are 
always late, the airport sometimes is not as cooperative as they 
could be on telling us exactly when the plane is coming in. 

Now, if you add something else to this, you' re 
making this more time-consuming. And it already is. Now, the 
main point I want to know is who's going to police who signs in 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 278-8009 



29 

and who doesn't sign in? Have we thought about that? Who's 
going to say "Hey, did you check in? Let me check and see if 
you did or if you didn't, " okay? 

That's, you know, if nobody's going to police it, 
then the only ones walking around in there are the pirates. The 
only ones walking around without something signed from 
Associated is the pirates; while we, the legitimate limosine 
services, are going in to check in, the pirates are out on the 
street. 

The pirating is not done in the airport 90 percent 
of the time; the pirating is done on the exterior of the 
airport. The pirates are not going to check in. The only ones 
who are going to check in is the guys who are responsible and 
who are going to take part in the ruling, if this does pass. 
So, while we're in talking to Associated telling them who we're 
picking up, the pirates are on the exterior of the airport where 
there is no signing up grabbing our customers. 

I don't think that's fair or right, and I don't 
think this whole bill is going to have anything to do with 
pirating. I would like to know what is the true reason for 
writing this up? Is it because Associated paid a lot of money 
for their contract, and the airport is going to react to any of 
their wishes or whims because of the amount of the money that 
they paid? I don't think that's very right. And if that's the 
reason why this bill is brought up, there's going to be a lot of 
trouble having to do if it does pass. 

Is that right? 

AUDIENCE: That's right (applause). 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 278-8009 



30 

MR. WEEKS: Thank you. 

MR. COBLENTZ: If there are no further requests, the 
meeting is adjourned. 

MR. TURPEN: Fine. 

MR. COBLENTZ: Are we adjourned now? 

MR. GARIBALDI: No. We close the public hearing. 

MR. GOOSBY: So that you understand, this will come 
in before the commission for a final action at another meeting. 

MR. TURPEN: August 6th f the first Tuesday in 
August. The first meeting in August. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Anything else, Ms. Caramatti? 

MS. CARAMATTI: That's it. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: That's it. 

(Meeting adjourned at 10:04 a.m.) 



0O0 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 278-8009 



STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 



) SS, 



I, the undersigned, a Notary Public of the State of 
California, hereby certify that the foregoing Public Hearing was 
taken at the time and place herein stated; that the proceedings 
of said Public Hearing were reported by me, a Certified 
Shorthand Reporter and disinterested person, and were thereafter 
transcribed under ray direction into typewriting; that the 
foregoing is a full, complete and true record of said hearing. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or attorney 
for either or any of the parties in the foregoing Public 
Hearing, nor am I in any way interested in the outcome of the 
cause named herein. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and 
affixed my seal this 26th day of July 1985. 



OFFICIAL SEAL 
CHARLOTTE CCRVANTEZ 
-I -\ . ■ PJ LlC; -CALIFORNIA J 
Ci'JUrt :.i- ALAMEDA 

Kytaiss:;nEx;;rssS3UJ,15S7S 







&&* 



■E-eE 






CHARLOTTE— CERV ANTE Z 
CSR #4486 - Notary Publi 
State of California 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 278-8009 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




MINUTES 



August 6, 1985 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

DEC ™ 4 1985 

PUBLIC UBHABY 



DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

WILLIAM K. COBLENTZ 

Vice-President 

DR. Z.L. GOOSBY 

J. EDWARD FLEISHELL 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 



LOUIS A.TURPEIM 

Director of Airports 



San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

August 6, 1985 



Calendar Agenda Resolution 

Section Item Title Number Page 

A. CALL TO ORDER: 4 

B. ROLL CALL: 4 

C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

Regular Meeting of 

June 18, 1985 85-0237 4 

D. ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 4 

E. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

1 . Progress Report on the 
1-380 Highway Construc- 
tion Program 5 

2. Report on Bay Area Tele- 
guide System 5 

F. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 5 

G. POLICY: 5 

3. Naming of Airport Streets 

and Roads 85-0238 5 

H. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

4. Modification of Airport Rules 

& Regulations: Limousines 85-0239 5 

5. Award of Lease for 

Automobile Service Station 85-0240 6 

6. Award of Contract No. 1013: 
Computerized Parking Control 

System 85-0241 6 

7. Public Automobile Parking 
Facilities Operating Agree- 
ment Prequal ification List 6 



Minutes, August 6, 1985, Page 1 



Calendar Agenda Resolution 

Section Item Title Number Page 

8. Authorization to Bid: 
Full-Service Baggage Storage 

Concession Lease 85-0242 6 

9. Renewal of Professional 
Services Contract with 





San Mateo County 




85-0243 


6 


10. 


Revised Five-Year Cap' 
Projects Plan 


ital 


85-0244 


7 


11. 


Award of Contract No. 1650 
Replacement of 4KV Power to 
Field Lighting Bui lding 


85-0245 


7 


12. 


Award of Contract No. 1606 
Stone Walkway in Atrium 
Boarding Area "D" 


85-0246 


7 


13. 


Tenant Improvement: 
United Airl ines 




85-0247 


7 


14. 


Tenant Improvement: 

U.S. Air 

Republ ic Airl ines 

PSA 




85-0248 
85-0249 
85-0250 


7-8 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

15. Airport Improvement Program 
Project Application for 

$600,000.00 85-0251 8 

16. Bid Call: 

Airport Contract No. 1629 

Replacement of Safety Railings 

at Water Pollution Control 

Plant 85-0252 8 

17. Tenant Improvement: 

FAA Power & Control Cable 

for Airfield Facilities 85-0253 8 

18. Approval of Expenditure by 
Art Commission for Maquette 
for Wall Mural at Boarding 

Area B 85-0254 ' 9 

19. Settlement of Claims Not 

Exceeding $2,500.00 85-0255 9 



Minutes, August 6, 1985, Page 2 



Calendar Agenda Resolution 

Section Item Title Number Page 

J. PUBLIC HEARING: 

20. Airport Rules and Regulations 
Modification Relating to 

Rental Car Courtesy Vehicles 9 

21. Vending Machine Policy 

Authorization to Amend 9 

K. CORRESPONDENCE: 9 

M. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED 

SESSION: 10 

ADDENDUM: COURT REPORTERS TRANSCRIPT 
OF PROCEEDINGS. 



Minutes, August 6, 1985, Page 3 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

August 6, 1985 



CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:00 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



B. ROLL CALL: 

Present: 



Morris Bernstein 
William K. Coblentz 
J. Edward Fleishell 
Athena Tsougarakis 

Z. L. Goosby arrived at 9:32 a.m. 



C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The Minutes of the regular meeting of June 18, 1985 were adopted by order 
of the Commission President. 

No. 85-0237 



D. ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 



In accordance with Section 54957.1 of 
the Brown Act, Jean Caramatti , 
Commission Secretary, announced 
unanimous adoption of Resolution No. 
85-0236 regarding the settlement of 
litigated claim at the Closed Session 
of July 16, 1985. 



Minutes, August 6, 1985, Page 4 



A court reporter's transcript of this meeting is attached. 

E. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

1 . Progress Report on the 1-380 Highway Construction Program 

2. Report on Bay Area Teleguide System 

* * * 



F. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

There were no items initiated by Commissioners 

* * * 



G. POLICY: 

Item 3 was unanimously adopted. 

3. Naming of Airport Streets and Roads 

No. 85-0238 Resolution approving the procedures in 

naming Airport streets and roads. 



H. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

Item 4 was unanimously adopted. 

4. Modification of Airport Rules & Regulations: Limousines 

No. 85-0239 Adoption of proposed modification of 

the Airport Rules and Regulations to 
bring them into conformance with 
provisions of the new limousine lease 
regarding pre-reglstration of the 
off-Airport limousines picking up 
pre-arranged passengers. 



Minutes, August 6, 1985, Page 5 



The following item was adopted by a 3-1 vote with Commissioner Bernstein 
casting the dissenting vote. 

5. Award of Lease for Automobile Service Station 

No. 85-0240 Resolution awarding lease for 

Automobile Service Station to Chevron 
U.S.A. Inc. 



Item 6 was unanimously adopted. 

Commissioner Goosby arrived at 9:32 a.m. during comments made by Allan 
Joseph concerning Item 6. 

6. Award of Contract No. 1013: 

Computerized Parking Control System 

No. 85-0241 Resolution awarding Contract No. 1013 

to Trindel America Corp. 



Item 7 was put over. 

7. Public Automobile Parking Facilities Operating Agreement - 
Prequal ification List 

Resolution to approve the exclusive 
list of firms prequal ified to bid on 
the Public Automobile Parking 
Facilities Operating Agreement. 



The following items were unanimously adopted. 

8. Authorization to Bid : 

Full-Service Baggage Storage Concession Lease 

No. 85-0242 Resolution approving modified lease 

specifications and authorizing lease 
to be bid. 



9. Renewal of Professional Services Contract with San Mateo County 

No. 85-0243 Renewal of professional services 

agreement between the City and County 
of San Francisco and San Mateo County 
wherein the County will be an 
independent contractor of the City to 
advise the Commission regarding 
possible actions to be taken to reduce 
the impact of aircraft generated noise 
on the San Mateo County environs. 



Minutes, August 6, 1985, Page 6 



10. Revised Five-Year Capital Projects Plan 



No. 85-0244 



Resolution approving the Airport's 
revised Five-Year Capital Projects 
Plan (dated July 26, 1985). 



11 . Award of Contract No. 1650 

Replacement of 4KV Power to Field Lighting Building 

No. 85-0245 Resolution awarding Contract No. 1650. 

Ten bids were received on July 2, 
1985, ranging from $76,199.00 to 
$110,000.00. 



12. Award of Contract No. 1606 
Stone Walkway in Atrium 
Boarding Area "D" 

No. 85-0246 



Resolution awarding Contract No. 1606 
to Angotti and Reilly, Inc., in the 
amount of $142,200.00. 

Four bids were received on June 19, 
1985, ranging from $136,460.00 to 
$221,904.00. 



13. Tenant Improvement: 
United Airl ines 

No. 85-0247 



a. M0C Ramp Pavement Repairs 
$96,000.00 - T-3016 

b. MOC Transformer Replacement 
$317,000.00 - T-3015. No 
rental credit. 

c. UAL Plot 4 Boiler Plant 
Conversion 

$550,000.00 - T-3017. No 
rental credit. 



4. Tenant Improvements: 

A. U.S. Air - South Terminal and Boarding Area 'A' 
Leasehold Improvements - (T-2971) 



No. 85-0248 



Construction of U.S. Air's ticket 
offices, ticket counters, baggage and 
operations offices and the 
installation of holdroom equipment, 
$240,000. No cost to Airport. 



Minutes, August 6, 1985, Page 7 



B. Republic Airlines - South Terminal and Boarding Area 'A' 
Leasehold Improvements - (T-3001) 

85-0249 Construction of Republic Airlines' 

ticket offices, ticket counters, 
baggage and operations offices and the 
installation of a baggage system and 
holdroom equipment, $600,000. No cost 
to Airport. 

C. PSA - South Terminal and Boarding Area 'A' 
Leasehold Improvements - (T-2973) 

No. 85-0250 Construction of PSA's ticket offices, 

ticket counters, baggage and 
operations offices and the 
installation of a baggage system and 
holdroom equipment, $1,800,000. No 
cost to Airport. 



I. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

The following items were unanimously adopted. 

15. Airport Improvement Program (A. I. P. No. 6) 
Project Application for $600,000.00 

No. 85-0251 Resolution approving the filing of an 

application for Federal assistance 
under the Airport Improvement Program 
for $600,000.00. 



16. Bid Call: Airport Contract No. 1629 

Replacement of Safety Railings at Hater Pollution Control Plant 

No. 85-0252 Resolution approving the final plans 

and specifications and authorizing the 
Director of Airports to call for bids 
for Airport Contract No. 1629, 
Replacement of Safety Railings at 
Water Pollution Control Plant. 



17. Tenant Improvement: 

FAA Power & Control Cable for Airfield Facilities 

No. 85-0253 $35,000.00 - T-2993. No cost to City. 



Minutes, August 6, 1985, Page 8 



18. Approval of Expenditure by Art Commission for Maquette for Mall Mural 
at Boarding Area B 



No. 85-0254 



Resolution approving $3,000 to four 
artists ($750.00 each) for conceptual 
design and maquette. 



19. Settlement of Claims Not Exceeding $2,500.00 



No. 85-0255 



Resolution approving the action of the 
Director of Airports, with the 
approval of the City Attorney, in the 
settlement and compromise of claims 
not exceeding $2,500.00. 
Total - $13,444.51. 



PUBLIC HEARING: 

The Public Hearing on Items 20 and 21 was opened at 10:05 a.m. and closed 
at 10:22 a.m. after public testimony had been taken. 

20. Airport Rules and Regulations Modification Relating to Rental Car 
Courtesy Vehicles 

Hearing on proposed modification of 
the Airport Rules and Regulations 
requiring all rental car courtesy 
vehicles to operate on the upper level 
terminal roadway only. 



21 . Vending Machine Pol icy 
Authorization to Amend 



Hearing to amend Airport's Vending 
Machine Policy. 



K. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission 



Minutes, August 6, 1985, Page 9 



M. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 10:22 A.M. to go into closed session. 



Jean Caramatti 
Commission Secretary 



Minutes, August 6, 1985, Page 10 



MEETING OF THE AIRPORTS COMMISSION 



IN AND FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



0O0 



SAN FRANCISCO CITY .HALL, ROOM 282 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 



Tuesday, August 6, 1985, 9:00 a.m. 



DP 



Taken Before ERA FARNSWORTH 

Notary Public in and for the County of Alameda 

State of California 

C.S.R. License No. 3208 

BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS 
20993 Foothill Boulevard, Suite 222 
Huyvvurd, California 94541 

BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 278-8009 



SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORTS COMMISSIONERS 

HONORABLE MORRIS BERNSTEIN, President 

HONORABLE WILLIAM K. COBLENTZ , Vice-President 

HONORABLE DR. Z.L. GOOSBY, Commissioner 

HONORABLE J. EDWARD FLEISHELL, Commissioner 

HONORABLE ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS , Commissioner 

LOUIS A. TURPEN, Director of Airports 

DONALD GARIBALDI, Airport General Counsel 

ANGELA GITTENS, Deputy Director for Business Finance 

JEAN CARAMATTI, Airports Commission Secretary 



PROCEEDINGS FOR AUGUST 6, 1985 

Audience Speakers Page 

ALEX CHAVES 11 

ALLAN JOSEPH 22 

JAMES PARKER 28 

THOMAS PERRIE 33 

JERRY CERAND 36 

BILL LAWDER 4 9 

BOB EPIFANIO 48 

JIM SENESE 51 

BART BEAULIEU 53 

SKIP CONRAD 5 3 

(Continued) 

BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 278-8009 



11 



PROCEEDINGS FOR AUGUST 6, 1985, Continued 

Audience Speakers Page 

ROGER ROMERO 56 

JAMES PARKS 57 

oOo 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 278-8009 



£M^ E E D I N G S 

MR. BERNSTEIN: The meeting of the San 
Francisco Airport Commission will please come to order. 
Will you call the roll, please? 

MS. CARAMATTI: Commissioner Coblentz. 

MR. COBLENTZ: Here. 

MS. CARAMATTI: Commissioner Fleishell. 

MR. FLEISHELL: Present. 

MS. CARAMATTI: Commissioner Tsougarakis. 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: Here. 

MS. CARAMATTI: We have four present. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: What do we have? 

MS. CARAMATTI: You have before you the 
minutes of the regular meeting of June 18. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Will you second? 

MR. COBLENTZ: Second. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Next? 

MS. CARAMATTI: The announcement by secretary, 
I am announcing the unanimous adoption 
of Resolution No. 85-0235 regarding the settlement of 
litigated claim at the closed session of July 16. 



MR. BERNSTEIN 

MS. CARAMATTI 

MR. BERNSTEIN 

MS . CARAMATTI 



No action necessary on that? 

No. 

All right. Next? 

Item 1, director's reports: 



Progress Report on 1-380 Highway Construction Program. 
MR. TURPEN: Only one comment. I believe 



the report is self-explanatory. 

I want to point out to the Airports 
Commission that CalTrans has been very cooperative in 
working with staff on traffic routing detours and the 
like. To date we have received no complaints due to 
the interchange reconstruction. It has not impacted 
that port -- or the interchange reconstruction has not 
negatively impacted our traffic flow to date. 

I will continue to file a quarterly 
report with the Airports Commission. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: All right. No action necessary 
on that, I believe? 

MR. TURPEN: No, sir. 
MR. BERNSTEIN: Next? 

MS. CARAMATTI: Item 2, a report on Bay 
Area Teleguide System. 

MR. TURPEN: This report to the Airports 
Commission action, by resolution, No. 84-0158, wherein 
the Commission authorizes a space use permit for a trial 
basis, for a trial period, to the Chronicle Videotech 
Systems . 

This trial period ends August 1st, 
1985. The staff recommends retaining the Chronicle Video- 
tech Teleguide Systems for six more months on a month-to- 
month basis. 

The staff will continue to investigate 
the acceptability of this form of passenger information. 
We will also investigate in the next 



of the airport's rules and regulations. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: All right. Any discussion 
on it? 

All right. We will take a vote. 
MS. CARAMATTI: Commissioner Bernstein. 
MR. BERNSTEIN: Yes, 

MS. CARAMATTI: Commissioner Coblentz. 
MR. COBLENTZ: Yes. 

MS. CARAMATTI: Commissioner Fleishell. 
MR. FLEISHELL: Yes. 

MS. CARAMATTI: Commissioner Tsougarakis. 
MS. TSOUGARAKIS: Yes. 
MR. BERNSTEIN: No. 5. 
MR. COBLENTZ: Move. 
MR. FLEISHELL: Second. 
MR. TURPEN: This is the award of the 
automobile service station. One bid was received for — 
it was a base bid of 72,000. Although the effective 
bid was greater, because a local business enterprise 
credit was given to Chevron which made our effective bid 
75,600. 

Their minimum guarantee of $72,000 is 
against the sum of each of the following merchandise 
sales components. 

What the city would receive is three 
cents per gallon on fuel flowage and ten percent of gross, 
generally, on other automotive repairs and accessories. 
This amount would be against a guaranteed minimum base 



six months any competing companies and report back to 
the Commission in January of 1986 on the results of that 
effort. 

Lastly, if the Commission elects to 
keep this type of medium in the airport on the long- 
term, there should be an exemption to the Airports 
Commission's no-advertising policies. It appears, 
according to our passenger information studies and surveys, 
that Teleguide Systems is an acceptable form of advertising, 

And at the end of the trial period, 
the Commission should reconsider their policy concerning 
advertising. 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: Mr. President, could I 
ask a question? How is Teleguide updated with information 
and news services at the aiport? 

MS. GITTENS: That is done essentially by 
the Teleguide people. They make one change and it affects 
all of the margins simultaneously. 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: How are they informed, 
or how do they get information on that kind of stuff? 

MS. GITTENS: For the airport information, 
they will be informed by airport staff. Where they have 
advertisements, they would be contacted by the tenants. 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: Okay. Like, for example, 
we are talking about passenger services? 

MR. TURPEN: They typically provide us with 
a printout of the information, and we update that 
information to accurately reflect what's going on at the 



airport . 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: How frequently? 
MS. GITTENS: We have been doing it about 
twice a year. We are going to need to do that, make 
a concerted effort when the South Terminal opens, and 
we will be getting with them for about a two to three- 
week period. 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: Thank you. 
MR. BERNSTEIN: Very well. 
MS. CARAMATTI: Our next item is items 
initiated by commissioners. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Do you want to take that? 
MR. TURPEN: That would be Item 3. 
MR. COBLENTZ : I would move Item 3, which 
is Procedure for Naming of Airport Streets and Roads. 
MR. FLEISHELL: Second. 

MR. TURPEN: This has simply been cleaned 
up to reflect the Commission's desire for a policy regarding 
the naming of airport streets as opposed to assigning 
numbers to them. 

And I believe the resolution is consistent 
with the Commission's direction to staff. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Fine. Will we have to vote 



on that? 



MS. CARAMATTI: Commissioner Bernstein? 
MR. BERNSTEIN: Yes. 

MS. CARAMATTI: Commissioner Coblentz? 
MR. COBLENTZ: Yes. 



MS. CARAMATTI: Commissioner Fleishell? 
MR. FLEISHELL: Yes. 

MS. CARAMATTI: Commissioner Tsougarakis? 
MS. TSOUGARAKIS: Yes. 
MR. BERNSTEIN: Next? 

MS. CARAMATTI: Did you want to go on to 
4, Mr. Turpen? 

MR. TURPEN: I'm sorry? 

MS. CARAMATTI: Did you want to go on to 
4 or 6 , skip them? 

MR. TURPEN: No, No. 4 is fine. 
MS. CARAMATTI: No. 4, Modification of 
Airport Rules and Regulations: Limousines. 
MR. COBLENTZ: I'll move. 
MS. TSOUGARAKIS: Second. 

MR. TURPEN: The Airports Commission had 
a public hearing on the proposed amendment to our rules 
and regulations relating to limousines at the Commission's 
last meeting which was July 16th. 

Today the regulation is being presented 
to the Commission exactly as it was presented at the 
public hearing. 

There were four major issues raised 
at the public hearing. Those were responded to by staff 
at the time, and are recaptured in my memorandum of 
July 2 6 to you. 

I would therefore recommend that the 
Airports Commission act favorably upon this modification 



of the airport's rules and regulations. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: All right. Any discussion 
on it? 

All right. We will take a vote. 
MS. CARAMATTI: Commissioner Bernstein. 
MR. BERNSTEIN: Yes. 

MS. CARAMATTI: Commissioner Coblentz. 
MR. COBLENTZ: Yes. 

MS. CARAMATTI: Commissioner Fleishell. 
MR. FLEISHELL: Yes. 

MS. CARAMATTI: Commissioner Tsougarakis. 
MS. TSOUGARAKIS: Yes. 
MR. BERNSTEIN: No. 5. 
MR. COBLENTZ: Move. 
MR. FLEISHELL: Second. 
MR. TURPEN: This is the award of the 
automobile service station. One bid was received for -- 
it was a base bid of 72,000. Although the effective 
bid was greater, because a local business enterprise 
credit was given to Chevron which made our effective bid 
75,600. 

Their minimum guarantee of $72,000 is 
against the sum of each of the following merchandise 
sales components. 

What the city would receive is three 
cents per gallon on fuel flowage and ten percent of gross, 
generally, on other automotive repairs and accessories. 
This amount would be against a guaranteed minimum base 



8 

bid of $72,000. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Do you have any comment on 
this, on the lease? 

MR. FLEISHELL: We tried. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: It doesn't seem like very 
much . 

This was the only bid, wasn't it? 

MR. TURPEN: Yes, sir, in effect. 

MR. COBLENTZ : If I remember correctly, we 
thought the initial bids were not equipped. We met with 
all the oil companies, we met with independent distributors 
we have searched. This is the only bid. 

MR. TURPEN: That's right. 

MR. COBLENTZ: We have certainly used more 
than the best efforts to obtain the highest and best bid. 

MR. FLEISHELL: When this goes before the 
Finance Committee, I suggest that we might have kind of 
a recap of what we did go through. There's going to be 
some questions about the drop in revenue from that 
particular lease. 

MR. TURPEN: I will. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: It seems inconceivable that 
the gas station at the airport ends up with one bid. I 
for one don't understand it. 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: Well, as I understand it, 
Shell actually submitted a memo saying we are not going 
to bid. 

MR. TURPEN: That's right. We repeatedly 



contacted all of the major oil companies, all of the large 
gasoline dealerships, service stations in the Bay Area 
in an effort to excite some interest in this concession. 

This is a five-year lease. We are 
presently in our master plan effort taking a look at 

6 relocating the service station from a main entrance 

7 roadway to an alternate airport site which I think will 

8 be a recommendation long-term. 

9 I think we can derive more significant 

10 revenues from that location by putting it to an alternate 

11 use in our long-term master plan. 

12 MR. BERNSTEIN: Okay. Do they have a sign? 

13 MR. TURPEN: They are permitted one sign 

14 out in front, yes, sir. 

15 MR. BERNSTEIN: It seems to me a sign at 

16 the airport ought to be worth $70,000 a year. 

17 Anyway, as a matter of principle, I 

18 just wanted to say that I'm so opposed to single bids 

19 that I'm going to move against it. 

20 Would you call the roll? 

21 MS. CARAMATTI : Commissioner Bernstein. 

22 MR. BERNSTEIN: No. 

23 MS. CARAMATTI: Commissioner Coblentz. 

24 MR. COBLENTZ: Yes. 

25 MS. CARAMATTI: Commissioner Fleishell. 

26 MR. FLEISHELL: Yes. 

27 MS. CARAMATTI: Commissioner Tsougarakis. 

28 MS. TSOUGARAKIS: Yes. 



10 

MR. BERNSTEIN: It passes. 
Disgraceful . 

MR. TURPEN: Commissioners, we will skip the 
next one, possibly, and just go down very quickly through 
the calendar. 

MR. COBLENTZ: Quickly, yes. 

MR. TURPEN: I believe, Commissioner, on 
the next item of the Computerized Parking Control System, 
there's a great deal of testimony. It might be better 
to go through the remainder of the calendar, and then 
clear up that. 

MR. FLEISHELL: No. 7, then. 

MS. CARAMATTI: Public Automobile Parking 
Facilities Operating Agreement-Prequalif ication List. 

MR. FLEISHELL: Move. 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: Second. 

MR. TURPEN: As the Airports Commission is 
aware, staff has been prequalif ying potential operators 
for the central parking facility. 

Staff receives prequalif ication documents 
from eight bidders for the Airport Parking Operating 
Agreement and recommends that seven be approved. The 
seven firms are listed in your memorandum of July 26th. 

There was one company, one firm, Parking 
Company of America, being recommended for disqualification 
by the staff. Staff feeling is the firm failed to 
demonstrate that it possessed the expertise necessary 
to manage a parking operation of the magnitude of the 



11 

airport. 

Staff has included for the Airports 
Commission's information, examples of the rationale, or 
examples which has caused the staff to determine that 
Parking Company of America not be permitted to bid on 
this contract. 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: Have they been notified? 
MR. CHAVES: I'm from Parking — 
MR. BERNSTEIN: Mr. Chaves. 
MR. CHAVES: Chaves. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Could you please come up 
so we could — thank you. 

MR. CHAVES: Yes, sir. I've been disqualified 
for inexperience. I can't hardly believe that. I have 
to protect myself here. 

We run two airports. Parking Company 
operates two airports. We are now at five, off-parking. 
I've been in the business 23 years. 

I didn't prepare the bid as well as 
maybe they thought I should have. I mean,, the prebid. 
I didn't know I had to bid before the prebid. 

I don't know how to defend myself with 
the experience that I have. I probably have more 
experience than anybody that's bidding. I don't 
understand this. 

There's a whole book here on how to 
disqualify me. How could they disqualify me on experience? 
MS. GITTENS: Commissioners, if you'll recall 



12 

in this item we decided we would go beyond the issue of 
minimum qualifications for this so-called prequalif ication 
phase. All the operators on this list, including Parking 
Company of America, did meet the minimum qualifications. 
And we, by dint of several questions in reviewing the 
answers to the committee, tried to assess the depth of 
experience for the kind of operation we were running 
and the kind of problems we've encountered. 

I think as we indicated in the document, 
we were particularly looking for attention to issues of 
fraud and dequalif ications , attentions to the types of 
procedures and the methods that the operator would employ 
to deter fraud and detect dequalif ications . 

And this particular submission did not 
impress our review committee that it really had a depth 
of experience and ability to deal with that kind of 
situation. 

We are dealing with a very sensitive 
operation, a very large operation, and we were particularly 
concerned about that and several other aspects. 

Again, Parking Company of America does 
meet minimum qualifications. 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: Mr. Chairman, can I ask 
a question? 

When did you receive the letter 
notifying you of the recommendation for disqualification? 
MR. CHAVES: Yesterday. 
MS. TSOUGARAKIS: Is that right, yesterday? 



13 

MS. GITTENS: We sent them out Wednesday. 
It's certainly possible it was not received until 
yesterday. 

MR. CHAVES: We have been in contact with 
the man, and he never said anything about it. We have 
been calling daily. 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: I would like to recommend, 
unless there is very strong objection, that we put it 
over and give Parking Company of America a chance to respond 
in writing to the specific concerns, and then we can 
review them at the next meeting. 

MR. COBLENTZ: Let me ask staff, what are 
the constraints we have here? What is the time and 
everything else? 

MS. GITTENS: We do have a time constraint, 
although holding over one more meeting, I think, would 
still put us within the time frame that we need. 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: The only reason I suggest 
this is I can appreciate the concerns that staff has 
presented us, but I think that, you know, they should 
be given an opportunity to respond to those, and a day 
doesn't quite do it. 

MS. GITTENS: If I could just make one 
clarification. They did have five weeks to get in the 
questionnaire . 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: I understand. 

MS. GITTENS: I didn't want anyone to think 
we had only given them a day. 



14 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: I understand, and I 
appreciate that, but still -- 

MR. BERNSTEIN: You said one thing I didn't 
quite understand. You said "it did not impress," or did 
they fail to meet the minimum? I'm really not interested 
if someone impresses someone. 

MS. GITTENS: They met the minimum 
qualifications on experience. I think it's three out 
of five years operating certain size garages but -- 

MR. BERNSTEIN: They did not meet the 
minimum requirements, but it was not a matter of 
impressing anyone. 

MS. GITTENS: No, they did meet the mimimun 
experience requirements. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Ray, Mr. King, you are on 
that committee, aren't you? 

MR. TURPEN: To clarify what I think Angela 
was saying, Parking Company of America meets the mimimum 
qualifications . 

What staff was looking for was how 
certain types of activities, which we are especially 
sensitive to, i.e., fraud, and this type of thing would 
be handled. 

I will let Ray speak to that, but in 
staff's opinion, the answers to those types of questions 
were not of sufficient depth to warrant a good grasp on 
how to deal with these situations. 

And frankly, we don't want to put 



15 

ourselves at risk by allowing someone to bid who, quite 
candidly, might not protect our interests in this regard. 

Ray? 
MR. CHAVEZ: We do this at Orange County 
Airport and also at Atlanta Airport. 

MR. KING: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I sat on your 
prequalif ication committee, and reviewed all eight of 
the — 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: Excuse me, for the record, 
would you state your name? 

MR. KING: Yes, Ray King, Director of the 
Parking Authority. 

— reviewed all eight of the 
presentations made. 

I think Parking Company of America, 
in my judgment, did not respond to the questions the 
information requested by the staff in the proposal put 
out . 

They were the only ones that did not. 
It was not possible for me, as one member .of that group, 
to determine how they would respond to the use of on- 
line or off-line revenue equipment, how they would protect 
against fraud, questions that were asked, and which most 
of the responders gave very detailed information. 

The Parking Company of America's response 
was very brief, and we couldn't make determinations off 
of their answers. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you. 



16 

MR. TURPEN: I think the Commission has two 
alternatives: One is to accept the list as provided and 
eliminate Parking Company of America, to disqualify Parking 
Company of America. 

I think the second Commission choice 
is to put this matter over for two weeks until the 20th 
of August, at the 20th of August meeting, which would 
provide Parking Company of America no more than one week 
from today to resubmit -- resubmit for reevaluation their 
qualifications, if in fact their initial submission did 
not reflect the depth of their experience. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Could you prepare, adequately 
prepare it by then? 

MR. TURPEN: I think one week is really the 
time frame. 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: Yes, oh, yes. Absolutely. 
MR. TURPEN: It would have to be in by close 
of business next Monday. 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: If they had received the 
document last Thursday, then I wouldn't have proposed 
this, but I think it's only fair, and I'm not asking for 
a resubmission. 

I'm really asking for a response to 
what the staff has said. It's not fair to the others. 

MR. TURPEN: Those are the two alternatives. 
MR. COBLENTZ : I just have a question. I 
was looking over their financial statement, and I have 
some questions here. 











17 








For instance, they list as assets silver 


at cost, 


16, 


000 


plus, then due from stockholders, 


163,000. 
















I think that should be looked at to 


see the 


f inancia 


1 solvency o 


f this particular company, 


and then 


— 












MS. 


TSOUGARAKIS 


: What's the notes receivable? 






MR. 


COBLENTZ : 


490,000. 






MS. 


TSOUGARAKIS 


: And what is the cost of 


silver? 














MR. 


COBLENTZ : 


Ihat's at cost, and silver 


has gone 


way down. 








MR. 


FLEISHELL: 


What's the weight of the 


silver? 














MR. 


BERNSTEIN: 


It can't go much down from 


16,000, 


can 


it? 










MS. 


TSOUGARAKIS 


: Oh, yes, it can. 






MR. 


TURPEN: Then as I understand the 


Commission 1 s 


action, Parking 


Company of America will be 


given un 


til 


close of business on Monday, which will be 


the 11th 


or 


12th 


, Monday the 


12th. 






MR. 


BERNSTEIN: 


If you will submit it by 


Monday, 


ther 


e wi 


11 be no further sanctions. 






MR. 


CHAVES: That would be fine. I appreciate 


that. 














MR. 


TURPEN: So 


close of business Monday, 


Parking 


Company 


of America will respond to staff's 


concerns 


, and based on their 


response we will do a 



18 

reevaluation and either remain with our recommendation 
or modify it at our next Commission's meeting. 

MR. CHAVES: Thank you very much. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Next? 

MS. CARAMATTI: 8, Authorization to Bid: 
Full-Service Baggage Storage Concession Lease. 

MR. COBLENTZ: Move. 

MR. FLEISHELL: Second it. 

MR. TURPEN: This is the full-service 
storage baggage concession which is currently projected 
for the South Terminal Connector. 

A copy of the lease modifications is 
attached to your Commission package. Changes are outlined 
fully on Page 1 of my memo, as well as an adjustment of 
rental on Page 2, which is being recommended in view of 
the fact that the South Terminal Connector will not be 
open for the first two years of the lease. 

And we request the Commission to bid 
this concession. 

MR. COBLENTZ: Move. 



We already said that. 

Why don't we call. 

Commissioner Bernstein, 

Yes. 

Commissioner Coblentz. 
MR. COBLENTZ: Yes. 

MS. CARAMATTI: Commissioner Fleishell. 
MR. FLEISHELL: Yes. 



MR. FLEISHELL 
MR. BERNSTEIN 
MS. CARAMATTI 
MR. BERNSTEIN 
MS. CARAMATTI 



19 

MS. CARAMATTI: Commissioner Tsougarakis. 
MS. TSOUGARAKIS: Yes. 

MR. COBLENTZ: Move Item 9, Professional 
Services Contract to San Mateo County. 
MR. FLEISHELL: Second. 

MR. TURPEN: This is a contract to support 
the Round Table. The cost remains, as it has the last 
four years, or three years, at $12,500, is our portion. 
It is matched equally by San Mateo County, and an 
additional $6,000 is provided by the local communities 
which support the Round Table. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Any addition to that? 

Next. 
MS. CARAMATTI: Item 10, Revised Five-Year 
Capital Projects Plan. 

MR. FLEISHELL: Moved. 
MR. COBLENTZ: Second. 

MR. TURPEN: This is simply a modificaiton 
of our five-year plan. The memo is self-explanatory. 
MR. BERNSTEIN: Anything else. on there? 
MR. TURPEN: No, it's very straightforward, 
sir . 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Any comment? 
MS. TSOUGARAKIS: Yes, I have one comment. 
I would like to commend the staff for their performance 
up to date on the five-year plan. I think coming in under 
two years is very good. 

MR. TURPEN: I will pass it on. Thank" you, 















20 


Commissioner. 














MR 


. BERNSTEIN: 


Call it. 










MS 


. CARAMATTI : 


Mr. Bernstein. 










MR 


BERNSTEIN: 


Yes. 










MS. 


CARAMATTI: 


Mr. Coblentz. 










MR. 


COBLENTZ : 


Yes. 










MS. 


CARAMATTI : 


Mr. Fleishell. 










MR. 


FLEISHELL: 


Yes. 










MS. 


CARAMATTI : 


Ms. Tsougarakis. 










MS. 


TSOUGARAKIS 


: Yes. 










MR. 


COBLENTZ : 


I will move Items 11, 


12 


? 


13 


and 14. 


















13 and 14 


are tenant improvements at 


no 


cost tc 


the airport or rental credit. And 11 


and 


12 


are 


awarde 


d to the high bidd 


er -- the low bidders 


, I 


m 


sor 


ry . 


MR. 
MR. 

MR. 
MR. 


FLEISHELL: 
BERNSTEIN: 

Mr . Turpen 
TURPEN: No 
BERNSTEIN: 

Next? 


Second. 
Any comment? 
p 

, sir. 
Same vote. 










MS. 


CARAMATTI : 


We have the consent 


calendar. 






MR. 


COBLENTZ : 


I will move the consent 




cal 


endar , 


Items 


15 through 19. 










MS. 


TSOUGARAKIS 


: Second. 










MR. 


BERNSTEIN: 


That' s through 19, B 


ill, 


isn * t 


it? 















21 

MR. TURPEN: Yes, sir. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: All right. So ordered. 

20? 
MS. CARAMATTI: This would be Public Hearing, 
Item 20, Airport Rules and Regulations Modification 
Relating to Rental Car Courtesy Vehicles. 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: Can we go back to No. 6, 
now? 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Mr. Lawder? 
MS. TSOUGARAKIS: Mr. President, I was 
recommending that we go back to No. 6 now. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: We only have the 20 and 21. 
MS. TSOUGARAKIS: But they're hearings. 
MR. TURPEN: How many people do you have 
for No. 20? 

MR. COBLENTZ : How many people are here to 
speak to Items 20, the Airport Rules, and 21, the Vending 
Machine Policy? 

I move we go to Item 6. 
MR. BERNSTEIN: You lose that. one, Bill. 
MS. CARAMATTI: Item 6, Award of Contract 
No. 1013: Computerized Parking Control System. 

MR. TURPEN: On this item if there is anyone 
who would care to speak to this item and has not filled 
out a form for the benefit of the Airports Commission, 
I ask that you do so now, and please provide it to the 
Commission Secretary. 

And the same thing with Items 20 and 



22 

21. Those are public hearings, and anyone who would like 
to address or speak to those issues should fill out an 
appropriate form. 

Thank you. 
MR. BERNSTEIN: All right. There is a 
request from Mr. Allan Joseph representing Cubic Western 
Data. 

MR. JOSEPH: Thank you. 

Good morning. I am Allan Joseph of 
the firm of Rogers, Joseph, O'Donnell & Quinn in San 
Francisco, representing Cubic Western Data. 

There have been a large number of papers 
that have been filed in this matter, and so for the 
convenience of the Commission we have prepared a single 
sheet which I believe is before each of the Commissioners. 

And in addition, we have made a copy 
of that available to the people from Trindel and to the 
City Attorney. 

I believe that most of the facts and 
legal principles are not in dispute. I think that it 
is agreed that a bidder must be responsive at the time 
of bid opening, and a bidder may not go outside the bid 
or a proposal to demonstrate that it's responsive. 

In addition, that point was underlined 
in the proposal -- or, I'm sorry, in the advertisement, 
which required that the bid be sufficient to permit the 
owner to make an objective determination that the proposed 
system meets the requirements of the contract document. 



23 

Now, the only point here, the only issue 
before this Commission, we believe, is whether Trindel's 
bid is responsive. 

And even more narrowly defined, the 
only issue is whether it can be objectively determined 
from Trindel's bid that Trindel intended to provide gates, 
32 entry and exit gates, which meet the specifications. 

There are three requirements in the 
specifications that are important here relating to the 
gates . 

There is the fact that the gates must 
have dual belts, transmission belts, or linkage belts. 
They must have special locking devices and variable timing 
devices. And it is important for the Commission to know 
that the existing gates, the existing gates at the airport 
do not have any of these features. 

Trindel's proposal in two places said 
that they were going to replace six of the existing 32 
gates . 

Trindel's proposal says .nothing about 
the other 26 gates, leaving the clear conclusion that 
Trindel intended to utilize the existing 26 gates. 

Now, up to this point I don't think 
there is any dispute in the facts or in the legal 
principles. I believe that the City Attorney will advise 
you that a bid must be responsive within itself. You 
can't go outside the bid to make it responsive, and that 
it must be determined at the time of bid opening that 



24 



it meets all the requirements of the specifications. 

I want to get rid of a couple of issues 
that really are not relevant. 

First of all, in an attempt to comply 
with its Human Rights Commission obligations Trindel, 
after bid opening, stated that it would replace all 32 
gates . 

I think everyone would agree that they 
cannot make their bid responsive by complying with Human 
Rights Commission requirements. The question is was their 
bid compliant at the time of bid opening. 

The second thing is this: This is not 
a minor deviation or minor informality. The gates are 
extremely important to the system. You have a memorandum 
from the Director of Airports, Mr. Turpen, dated July 31, 
which notes that there are real problems with present 
revenue control equipment, including the gate arm. And 
those are the issues that are addressed by this equipment. 

Now, the question then comes down to 
this: Can an objective determination be made from 
Trindel 's bid, from the bid itself, that Trindel intended 
to comply with the specifications concerning these 26 
gates . 

Trindel ' s proposal, as I said, in two 
places, states that they were going to replace the six 
gates in Lot D. It says nothing about, nothing about 
the other 26 gates. 

Trindel now says that it intended to 



25 

modify the 26 gates that it intends to use. 

We think that there are several things 
wrong with that. 

First of all, that cannot be determined 
from their proposal, from Trindel's proposal itself. You' 
cannot find that in the proposal. There is no mention 
whatever in the proposal about modifying existing gates. 

Now, Trindel has said in some of its 
submissions that it has placed throughout the proposal 
statement, we understand and will comply with the 
specifications . 

But in the submissions we have made 
to the City Attorney, we have pointed out that that is 
not sufficient. Under the law, that is not sufficient, 
simply a statement that we will comply, or that we will 
meet warranty obligations. 

Now, I would like to draw your attention 
to Point No. 6 in our single sheet. We note that in its 
July 8 letter Trindel states, and this is a quote, since 
the specification does not require new gates in all 
instances, Trindel left open the option, the option to 
possibly refurbish the main lot gates, and stated that 
in any case the Lot D gates would be replaced. 

Now, let me call to the Commission's 
attention the mischief that this would create. It permits 
Trindel to say, after the bids are open, gives them an 
option to say if the difference in price, if the difference 
in bids is great, it permits them to say, oh, we made 



26 



a mistake. We didn't intend to comply with the 
requirements for the other 26 gates, or we didn't 
understand those requirements. 

Or even worse, from the Commission's 
point of view, to say after bid award -- after award of 
the contract, I mean, that the requirement wasn't clear, 
and so our attempt or our obligation to meet the 
requirements for the 26 gates was not clear, and therefore 
that's a change order. We are entitled to be paid 
additional money. 

For those reasons , and to avoid that 
mischief, the law is clear that you cannot go back and 
correct a defect that is not a minor defect. 

We do not know, and we have not been 
provided with the staff or the staff consultant, 
Mr. Cerand's report, indicating how the staff or the 
consultant could have found that Trindel met the 
requirements with regard to these individual gates. We 
know it cannot be found within the bid documents themselves, 

We necessarily must assume that it is 
found in so-called clarifications outside the bid 
documents. We think that is inappropriate. We think 
that renders the contract illegal and unenforceable, if 
it were awarded to Trindel. 

Now, I know this matter has been 
pending i : or the Commission for some time, and I know it 
is frustratina to the Commission and frustrating to the 
bidders, but nonetheless, the Commission still has the 



27 

obligation, as I know you will agree, the Commission still 
has the obligation to do the right thing and to award 
a contract based on the responsive bidders. 

It is our view that the responsive 
bidder in this case is Cubic Western Data, and it should 
be awarded the contract. 

Now, Mr. Parker is here from Cubic 
Western to explain one point, and that is this, that it 
was not practical, it was not practical to, and not 
technically feasible, really, to actually refurbish the 
26 gates that Trindel intended to utilize. That that was 
not a practical alternative, and therefore it must be 
the case that Trindel intended to use the 26 gates as 
is . 

And it was only after the matter was 
raised in a protest letter by Cubic Western that Trindel 
now says it intended to refurbish the gates in order to 
meet the specifications. 

With the Commission's permission, I 
would like to ask Mr. Parker to speak to that point, and 
I would like to ask the President if it is appropriate 
to respond to arguments made on behalf of Trindel, or 
may we only speak once? 

MR. BERNSTEIN: I think you only speak once. 
MR. JOSEPH: Thank you. I won't press the 
point . 

May I ask Mr. Parker to speak on the 
one point? 



MR. BERNSTEIN: Fine. Mr. Parker. 
MR. PARKER: Honorable Commissioners, we 
have been looking at the airport contract now for over 
two years. We hope that we reach a decision pretty soon. 

With respect to the gates, we have the 
opportunity, as Trindel alleges, to also choose the option 
to refurbish the gates. 

However, when you look at the gates, 
you find that there's three major problems, in addition 
to the age and general condition of the gates. One major 
mechanical problem with the present design is that there 
is only one rubber drive belt, which is similar to a fan 
belt in an automobile. When that one belt breaks, if 
the gate is already in the up position, it could crash down 
on the hood of an automobile. 

The reason for the two belts is so that 
when this happens, you do not injure a patron's vehicle 
as he's going through the gate. 

To refurbish the present gates requires 
you to change the design of an existing Cincinnati Time 
Recorder gate to a nonstandard gate. 

Now, you have a maintenance problem. 
First of all, you have the nonreoccurring charges to do 
that design, then you have the fabrication of the material 
and the installation. 

Now, new gates, the raw cost, are 
actually, if you purchase one, is less than $1500. 

Now, the other feature that is required 



29 

in Mr. Cerand's specifications is when a gate arm comes 
down and impacts a transversing automobile, that the gate 
retract and come to a raised position. You're required 
by the specification to have a variable setting control 
that varies from two to 60 seconds that the airport 
operator, based on his experience, can set to safely allow 
the automobile to go through without the gate arm coming 
down again. 

A quotation that I have from Cincinatti 
Time Recorder, just the purchase price of this control 
module is $525. 

Now, you have a minor item of programmable 
locks, probably a $50 purchase item, plus labor. 

Well, one can actually repair an 
automobile by retaining the radiator cap and driving a 
new automobile underneath it. That is what you face, 
and the question is is it really reasonable to refurbish 
these gates? 

It's cheaper to put in new gates. That's 
the bottom line, and any reasonable bidder would come 
to the conclusion it would be less cost to him to install 
new gates. 

One of the interesting points in the 
Trindel letter is talking about gates in Lot D. In their 
July 9th letter they said the gates in Lot D would be 
of the same manufacture and design as the gates in the 
main parking garage. 

You ought to ponder. That somewhat 



30 

implies the gates in Lot D would also only have one drive 
belt. 

Thank you. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you. 

MR. TURPEN: Local counsel for Trindel. 

MR. PERRIE: Mr. Chairman, my name is Tom 
Perrie, and I also represent Trindel. Mr. Knapp has 
deferred to me to respond to the position taken by Cubic 
Western. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: You're from? 

MR. PERRIE: Thomas Perrie. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: All right. 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: Speaking for Mr. Knapp? 

MR. PERRIE: Speaking for Mr. Knapp. 

I think that this is a matter, members 
of the Commission, which has been addressed over an 
extended period of time, and in no less than either five 
or six items of correspondence in the nature of protest 
from Cubic Western. It has been thoroughly responded to 
by Trindel, along with numerous other issues raised by 
Cubic Western, which we presume they now no longer raise. 
It has been reviewed by the City Attorney's office. It 
has been reviewed by Cerand & Company, which is the 
consultant that wrote the specifications, and therefore 
presumably knows better than any of us what the requirements 
and intent of those documents are. 

It is my understanding that both the 
City Attorney and Cerand & Company have made an affirmative 



31 

determination that the Trindel is compliant, and in that 
regard that Trindel is both, as we say, responsible and 
responsive in its bid. 

I really don't want to belabor this 
point unnecessarily, but I do think we have to respond 
to the statements which were made, certainly in all 
fairness to the Commission. 

The first thing is I think we need to 
take a look at the nature of the bidding process, which 
I think is in one sense self-evident, but in another 
possibly not. 

The normal process of bidding, of course, 
the most normal method of bidding is for a specification 
to be produced which sets forth the requirements for the 
goods or services to be furnished, and in many instances 
results in essentially a piece of paper which is a number 
saying I will sign the contract, I will comply with the 
requirements of the bidding documents as a contractual 
obligation, and I will do it for X dollars. 

In this particular case, because we 
are in fact dealing with a high technology, virtual state 
of the art system, which I might add really has nothing 
to do with the gates, which are not in the same sense 
high technology, state of the art. 

It is a computerized system, and in 
that regard it is high technology and state of the art. 

The consultant wisely, I think, has 
chosen to set out certain specific requirements, but to 



32 

also give the bidder certain flexibility and allow him 
to submit proposals, something that is not normally the 
case, making a judgment in submitting those proposals. 

Each and every item necessarily, of 
course, requires a judgment on the part of the bidder 
as to the question of simply how far do I need to go in 
order to adequately provide information concerning how 
I'm going to do this and comply with the specifications. 

You could go all the way down to the 
point of having the bidder simply regurgitate, it's going 
to be 115 volts AC, 60 cycles, which would be obviously 
meaningless . 

We submit it's also meaningless to 
simply regurgitate the specifications, the requirements 
that are already there. 

Where the specifications are clear and 
unequivocal on their face, where the contract and 
documents make it clear that it's the obligation of the 
bidder, if awarded the contract, to comply with those 
specifications in every regard, it is unnecessary and 
really simply takes up unnecessary review time by the 
staff, and by the consultants, Cerand & Company, to simply 
regurgitate . 

Now, in the case of the gates, the 
specifications are clear and unequivocal. They say 
exactly what the requirements are for the gates. 

These gates are very normal. They're 
installed at airports and other parking facilities' 



33 

throughout the country, and the basic Trindel response 
was simply we understand the specification requirements, 
and we will comply with them. And that was specifically 
stated . 

And where there is no ambiguity 
concerning what is required, that should be sufficient. 

Now, in the bid form itself it had a 
line item to submit numbers of units and price. Since 
at the time of bid we had determined that we would in 
fact replace all gates in Lot D, we put in six items. 
And since we had determined that we probably would 
refurbish the other 26 gates, we included the cost of 
that in our installation price. 

But there was no place on the bid form 
to put in a separate item for refurbishment or whatever. 

It's also quite clear, and was clearly 
explained in prebid conference, and I think there is no 
argument, that bidders were entitled to reuse existing 
equipment where it was suitable for reuse. And in fact, 
Cubic Western has specifically proposed to do this with 
certain digital detectors. 

So, we did not elect to do anything 
that Cubic Western itself did not elect also to do in 
another context. 

I will acknowledge that for purposes 
of determining whether or not we were a responsive bidder 
at the time of the bid that the question of whether or 
not we may in the final determination replace all "of the 



34 

gates is not material. 

We have stated that due to certain other 
reasons, in fact, we will replace all of the gates at 
no change in cost or price. 

And obviously, we would not be entitled 
to any change in cost or price, because our obligation, 
once again, is simply to comply with the specifications, 
and that we would do and we will do, as also borne out 
by the fact that we have more experience in the 
installations of these systems in the United States than 
any other company. 

In fact, I think it's probably fair 
to say that we have more installed and operating systems 
on any basis you would care to consider it for computerized 
parking systems than the sum of all the other companies 
in this country. 

I really don't know a lot else to say 
about this. I think we have belabored the point possibly 
too long. 

Our bid was responsive. The persons 
responsible for making that determination, the City 
Attorney and Cerand & Company, have reviewed the matter 
in depth. 

It is my understanding that they have 
determined that we were in fact responsive in this regard. 

The technical considerations raised 
by Mr. Parker, I would submit to you very simply 
Mr. Parker is simply wrong. 



35 

We have a written proposal by Cincinnati, 
the manufacturer of the gates to provide the necessary 
refurbishment and so forth for a price which is much less 
than the cost of the new gates, which would make these 
gates comply with the specifications. 

As far as the business about two pulleys 
and so forth, I have here, these are the Cincinnati 
drawings for the mechanism on this particular model of 
gate, Model 200. 

They show quite clearly that the motor 
shaft and the arm in which the pulley goes are quite 
adequate to accommodate a double pulley with dual belts, 
which is what we would have done had we refurbished the 
gates . 

As far as the timing considerations 
and so forth, there are any number of ways to handle 
that, quite simply, including software controls from a 
central computer. 

Quite simply, I would suggest that it 
is not up to Cubic Western to tell us whether or not we 
can or cannot do something from a technical standpoint. 
We have proven quite clearly in a lot of other installations 
that we are quite capable technically, and we can do what 
we say we can do. 

Thank you very much. 
MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you. 

Mr. Perrie? General Counsel? 
MR. TURPEN: That was Mr. Perrie. 



36 

MR. BERNSTEIN: One other, Mr. Knapp. 

MR. TURPEN: Mr. Knapp waived his right. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: There are no further speakers? 

MR. PERRIE: We have no further speakers, 
Mr. Chairman. 

MR. TURPEN: I would like the Commission 
to hear from our technical consultant, Mr. Cerand, since 
this apears to be focussing on the number of gates replaced 
versus number of gates refurbished. 

Mr. Cerand, will you please clarify 
this for the Commission? 

MR. CERAND: My name is Jerry Cerand from 
the Cerand & Company, and our company is the company that 
wrote the technical specification documents and evaluated 
both bidders. 

We found both bidders to be responsive 
to the technical documents. We found a total price of 
$26,000 on a one point six million dollar bid being the 
difference, which is a very competitive bid. 

I think it's a point for our company 
to just say that both bidders being qualified provides 
the City with two very capable vendors to do this job. 
With the City's requirement for low bidder, since there 
is a $26,000 difference, our company from a technical 
standpoint, recommended that Trindel be awarded the contract 

I would just like to clarify one thing 
if I could, the speaker for Cubic Western said the City 
did not have the right to obtain additional information, 



37 

and that's simply not true. 

In Paragraph — or Page 100-5 of the 
technical specification documents, it clearly says the 
City has the right to go back and get additional 
information in the event that the technical proposal leaves 
some question in the evaluation process. 

We did this so the City would not have 
to go continually through bids all the time. 

Based on that, our company stands firm 
on saying that both companies are qualified. Both had 
to respond to clarification, both companies answered 
questions that we raised in regards to their statements 
in their proposals. And we recommend to the City and 
the Commission that you accept Trindel from a technical 
standpoint as being the lowest and most responsive 
bidder . 

If there are any questions, I'd be more 
than glad to answer questions for the Commission. 

MR. FLEISHELL: I have several questions. 

Do you have knowledge of why this bid, 
in two years, has gone up 60 percent on the identical 
specifications, precisely identical specifications? Two 
years later it's costing $600,000 more. 

MR. CERAND: I can't answer for the vendors. 
They're the ones that bid the thing. It's very hard for 
us, because we have several of these projects around the 
country, and there is no set price that the vendor charges 
for his ticket machine at San Francisco, than they- do 



at Boston, Logan or any other major airport in the 
country. 

They do have the freedom of the bid, 
and it is a competitive process. 

I couldn't tell you why their prices 
went up. I would say one thing, we had to go out and 
bid twice last time, and that did force the bids to be 
extremely low, you know, from where we thought. 

We gave you an engineering estimate 
for that first go around of approximately one point four 
million dollars, which we thought the bid price would 
come in at. 

The middle price was way down around 
a million, and the second time they were down almost a 
million even. This time we thought it would be about 
one point four, one point five million. So it is a hundred 
thousand dollars higher than what we thought it would 
have been. 

I would still stand by our engineering 
cost estimate, what we thought the system would run. I 
think you did see an extremely low bid process the first 
time around, and that may be the reason why it's a 60 
percent increase right now, the first time was too low. 

MR. FLEISHELL: On that tone, though, don't 
we have a bonding company liability that will take the 
difference between the one million six hundred thousand 
and this low bid? 

MR. CERAND: You'd have to check this with 



39 
the legal department, but I believe your bond -- 

MR. FLEISHELL: Haven't you been involved 
in the negotiations? 

MR. CERAND: Not from the legal standpoint. 
We felt that the company did not meet the requirements 
of their contract and therefore the bond should be called, 
and which the City did call the bond. 

Now, my understanding is that the bond 
would be paid to the City for one point five. Whether 
they have to pay the difference or the penalties, I think 
is to be -- 

MR. TURPEN: I might ask Don to comment. 

MR. GARIBALDI: We do have a claim with the 
bonding company for the difference between the formal 
bid and whatever the amount is that the contract was 
awarded this time. 

In addition, there are some other issues 
about the running of liquidated damages, because of delay 
in completing the contract and other claims for attorneys' 
fees and other costs, all of which we will make against 
the bonding company. They're on notice of all those claims 
already. 

MR. FLEISHELL: Just one final comment. We 
have had the benefit of great research by both sides of 
the bidding process here, both of the bidders have torn 
apart the bid of the other fellow. 

I wonder, since apparently neither of 
these people are completely kidding each other and 



40 

attempting to kid the Commission, whether there is an 
ambiguity that needs to be clarified. 

If you award the contract today, can 
you assure us that the contract as prepared by our staff 
will be signed? 

MR. CERAND: We do just about every major 
airport in the country, or have done, and have gone 
through the exact same bidding process. We see the same 
bidding faces at each bidding table. 

I think it's a healthy situation when 
the vendors are that actively and competitively trying 
to find out that they want the job. I think it's a process 
in which we're talking about a system which involves a 
lot of software. 

This is not something that you can build 
and set there, it's done. The hardware has to be driven 
by the software. So you're talking about a lot of 
creativity. One vendor does it one way, another vendor 
does it another way. 

Just like one person likes a black suit 
and the other likes a grey suit. 

It's been healthy bidding situations 
all over the country. 

We do help each vendor concerned. Our 
company goes to each vendor throughout the year. We try 
to help the vendors any way we can. We think that makes 
a better competitive bidding process. That's what we're 
concerned about. 



41 

I am very comfortable that if we have 
to sit here and talk about the complexity of this system, 
and we're down to the point where somebody is going to 
refurbish 26 gates or buy them, the City is protected 
as far as I'm concerned, because they have the right to 
refurbish it. 

If they decide we are going to have 
to put new ones in, it's more money, I'm going to say 
no, no, because it's in specification document Volume 
2, 2 or 4A1. 

They specifically said they would comply 
in making sure a specific gate that we described in some 
X number of paragraphs down in detail would be in every 
installation. 

I do feel the City is extremely well 
covered. 

MR. FLEISHELL: I hope you're right, 
Mr. Cerand. I remember several years ago we had this 
identical conversation when we approved the last bidder, 
and two years later we learned he wasn't performing, and 
we had to cancel his agreement. 

MR. CERAND: That's right. Unfortunately, 
as a consultant, you cannot do what the vendor doesn't 
do. 

What I think you have to do is totally 
protect your client by having the client in a position 
that he goes out and does get what hopefully is the most 
responsive bid. The lowest bid does create a problem 



42 

if there were three or four bidders in this arena today, 
and a lot more qualified and are expressing a greater 
desire to complete these projects. 

I want to thank the Commission very 
much. If there are any other commissions we can settle 
for you, please let us know. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Mr. Turpen, anything you 
would like to add? 

MR. TURPEN: I think Mr. Cerand ' s comments 
capture the technical argument which seems to have focussed 
on this bid. 

Both companies are technically qualified 
to perform. Both companies have been approved by HRC; 
is that right? And HRC has approved both companies. 

The City Attorney has recommended, has 
reviewed the documentation, has indicated the Airports 
Commission can award to the lowest bidder. And that would 
be our recommendations to the Commission at this time. 

MR. COBLENTZ : What is the recommendation 
of staff here? Is it that we take it under submission, 
that we vote on it? 

MR. TURPEN: Under Item H in your package, 
Commissioner, there is a rather lengthy resolution. 

There are some time constraints in the 
fact that this contract has not been completed as crisply 
as we had originally anticipated. We certainly wouldn't 
want to go into any further delay in getting this contract 
implemented because we would then face the spectre of 



43 

replacing, doing another interim replacement. 

DR. GOOSBY: If it hasn't been moved to be 
before us, I would move it. 

MR. COBLENTZ: I think, I suspect on behalf 
of all members of the Commission, I would state that we 
received the attachment to the Commission package, which 
was at least an inch and a half thick, that it's been 
read, and I'm sure read by every member of the Commission. 

We have listened to the testimony here, 
not only on behalf of the two prospective bidders, but 
as well as staff. 

And therefore in light of that, I would 
second the proposal of Commissioner Goosby. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Call the vote. 

MR. COBLENTZ: That calls for a vote. 
What we are doing is moving the 
resolution as set in Item H of our package. 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: I just have one question. 
There is a lot of clarification that has occurred in this 
package, and is there any way that that can be part of 
the process? 

I don't know if it's a legitimate question, 
or -- 

MR. COBLENTZ: What do you mean by that? 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: There ' s an awful lot of 
detail that's been spelled out in all this documentation. 

MR. COBLENTZ: Do you want more time? 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Do you want more time? 



44 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: No, I was thinking — not 
necessarily. I was thinking if we approve it subject 
to incorporating some of the technical detail into the 
contract . 

MR. TURPEN: I think, truly, what we have 
is a very competitive bidding situation. It is really 
focused, taking away all the rest of the documentation, 
it's focused on how many gate arms are going to be 
replaced . 

I think Mr. Cerand has commented very 
effectively that the Commission is protected in this 
regard. The specifications are clear. We have several 
paragraphs in describing what the gate arm should do. 

In that regard it would be my 
recommendation that we move ahead with this project. I 
don't see that any clarification is needed. This appears 
to be a single-issue dispute. 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: I wasn't suggesting delaying 
it. 

MR. TURPEN: I think it's a single-issue 
dispute. I think the issue has been addressed. I think 
anything further would be redundant in view of the amount 
of information that has already been -- 
(Brief interruption. ) 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: Call for the question. 

MS. CARAMATTI: Commissioner Bernstein. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: I'm not quite satisfied in 
my mind, but I find it's very difficult to go against 



45 

staff, and the recommendation of our Mr. Cerand and 
yourself . 

I understand you are satisfied? 
MR. TURPEN: Yes, sir. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Under those circumstances, 
I think it leaves us no alternative but for me to say yes. 
MS. CARAMATTI: Commissioner Coblentz. 
MR. COBLENTZ: Yes. 

MS. CARAMATTI: Commissioner Goosby. 
DR. GOOSBY: Yes. 

MS. CARAMATTI: Commissioner Fleishell. 
MR. FLEISHELL: Yes. 

MS. CARAMATTI: Commissioner Tsougarakis. 
MS. TSOUGARAKIS: Yes. 
MR. COBLENTZ: An unsatisfied yes. 
MS. TSOUGARAKIS: Not really. 
MR. BERNSTEIN: Let's go to 20. 
MS. CARAMATTI: Next is a public hearing, 
Airport Rules and Regulations Modification Relating to 
Rental Car Courtesy Vehicles. 

DR. GOOSBY: I'm not asking for any action 
on this, Mr. Chairman. As I understand it this is just 
going to be a hearing to hear the debate and then the 
staff is going to come ud with the specific recommendations. 

MR. TURPEN: That's right, sir. Contained 
in your package is the reason for this public hearing, 
presently off-airport rental car companies, which comprise 
200 trips daily, use the lower level of the airport." 



46 

The on-airport rental car companies 
which comprise about a thousand trips a day operate on 
the upper level. 

The staff is coming before the 
Commission with a modification of the rules and 
regulations which will cause everyone to operate 
exclusively on the upper level of the roadway. That is 
what the Commission will take testimony on today from 
the affected parties. 

Staff will consider that testimony, as 
can the Commission, then we will come back to you with 
a recommendation at the next meeting. 

DR. GOOSBY: Just for the shuttle? 
MR. TURPEN: Just for the rental car, the 
buses . 

DR. GOOSBY: That's what I mean. They come 
over to the lot to get their car? 

MR. TURPEN: There is more to it than that. 
Just historically, for the Commission's 
perspective, in 1979 we had a situation where rental car 
companies were operating on both levels of the airport, 
about a thousand buses a day upstairs, about a thousand 
buses a day downstairs. 

That was the period, if you remember, 
that we went to painting the columns with a different 
stop and trying to rationalize the use of our roadway 
system for the amount of activity we have. 

We came up with this system of utilizing 



47 

the roadways. 

As part of that system the rental car 
companies agreed to operate exclusively on the upper level, 
which cut their number of trips significantly. 

It has come to our attention, through 
Mr. Lawder of Hertz, who has asked permission, if my 
memory serves, has requested that the on-rental cars be 
able to operate both levels, because some off-airport 
companies are operating on the lower level. 

We think that he's right, that one rule 
is a good rule, and we have taken the position that the 
rule ought to be that everyone operates upstairs, because 
of the congestion downstairs. 

The difference between upstairs and 
downstairs is a question of dwell time. Upstairs people 
drop off. It's a fairly short-term activity, and they 
leave. 

Downstairs they come in, if the 
airplanes are a few minutes' late, if someone can't find 
a bag, it tends to be a longer period of time, three to 
four times as long, five times as long downstairs. 

What we have tried to do is balance 
traffic at the airport, and interior and exterior portions 
of the roadway system, in order to permit a fairly smooth 
traffic flow. 

What's before you today is our suggestion 
that all rental car companies' courtesy vehicles operate 
on the upper level of the roadway. 



48 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: Do we know how many 
passengers board off airport shuttles, versus on airport 
shuttles? 

MR. TURPEN: We talked about it. Two hundred 
seventy-five trips a day, Robert? 

MR. EPIFANIO: We have about 275 bus trips. 
However, we do not have a count. We know about 12 percent 
of our traffic uses rental operations as a whole. We 
don't have a split that identifies the on airport. The 
bussing is about three times heavier, just by comparing 
vehicle trips, the vehicles of the on-airport operators. 

DR. GOOSBY: Run much more frequently. 

MR. TURPEN: Typically with an on-airport 
operator, advising the operator that they were on airport 
and maybe picked up as few as one person. Oftentimes 
it would be as few as one person, or three, or four or 
five people. 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: That's true of many of 
them. 

MR. TURPEN: There was a schedule that, 
running so frequently, they can board several people on 
the upper level, because people will go to prearranged 
locations on the curbside and board the vehicles. 
Thank you, Robert. 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: Aren't we supposed to be 
making it convenient for the passenger? 

MR. TURPEN: It is much more convenient to 
have traffic move, because it didn't in 1979, just didn't 



49 

move. 

We have multiple rental car buses 
literally stopping traffic from moving on the airport. 
In 1979 it was absolutely a disaster, and since we have 
come up with this pretty much smoothing function. 

We have tried to equalize curb usage 
and everything else. We at least can move traffic through 
the airport. 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: That wasn't true Friday 
night . 

MR. TURPEN: Seriously, there's just the 
crush of people. 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: I went to pick up something 
and the guy moved me along. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Bill, do you want to say 
something? 

MR. LAWDER: Mr. President, I'm Bill Lawder, 
for the Hertz Corporation. 

I think Director Turpen set forth pretty 
well Hertz' position on this matter. Frankly, I was kind 
of struck by Commissioner -- 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: My name is Athena. 

MR. LAWDER: — Tsougarakis. 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: Tsougarakis. 

MR. LAWDER: Frankly, the way to solve the 
convenience problem is to put us, us on airport concessions 
on the top floor of the garage, and we will quit bussing. 
And that's convenient for everybody, and that's a subject 



50 

for a separate meeting. 

The reason that we are here is the fastest 
segments of our industry is the off-airport industry. 
And to the extent that it grows, your concession revenues 
go down. 

And we have reached the point, in order 
to be competitive at San Francisco, we have to have as equal 
access to the customer as the off-airport rental car 
industry. 

Right now we don't have that. I 
understand as a practical matter we can't have it, because 
the lower level cannot accommodate our buses. If there 
is a traffic problem below, then let's have all the busing 
at the upper level. 

Thank you very much. 
DR. GOOSBY: Then you would be in favor of 
making all the shuttles for all the car companies come 
to the upper level, like you're restricted to now? 
MR. LAWDER: That's correct. 
MR. TURPEN: One rule for everybody. 
DR. GOOSBY: Yes. Everybody does the same 
thing . 

A thousand dollars a month or more. 
Didn't I read your memo where we would probably lose about 
$1700 a month? 

MR. TURPEN: In terms of the permitting. 
DR. GOOSBY: Yes. Right. So we do that 
with great sacrifice. 



51 

MR. LAWDER: I suspect that you will make 
it up on concession revenues quite quickly. Thank you. 

DR. GOOSBY: Thanks. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Mr. Senese, did you want 
to say anything? 

MR. SENESE: Good morning, my name is Jim 
Senese. I'm the manager for the National Car Rental 
concession for the San Francisco Airport. 

My purpose in being here this morning 
is just to convey my company's position that we support 
and are in favor of any regulation or change to the 
regulation concerning car rental courtesy buses that treats 
all of the car rental companies equally and fairly. And 
we think that this regulation does, and we support it. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you. 

MR. TURPEN: Thank you. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: We will take this under 
advisement . 

MR. TURPEN: The staff will come back with 
a resolution next Commission meeting. 

MR. COBLENTZ : Let me say, speaking only 
for myself, I must say that treating everybody equally 
has a great deal of merit to it, and that combined with 
the relief of the congestion in the lower level makes 
a lot of sense to me. 

DR. GOOSBY: And we are helping the public, 
like Athena said, keeping the public in mind in one hand 
and not in the other. Certainly getting your baggage 



52 

out on the curb, catch a bus and pick up your car, rather 
than go to the things, carousels, put them on a cart, 
take them up the escalator, and then go out to the front 
and get your car. 

So one way we are losing, the other 
way we are gaining. But as the Director indicated — 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: We are going to lose money 
from the carts, because you can't take the carts up the 
escalator. 

MR. TURPEN: Up the elevator. 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: How many people are going 
to go up the elevator? 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Next. What is it, 21? 

MS. CARAMATTI: Item 21, Vending Machine 
Policy, Authorization to Amend. 

MR. TURPEN: This is a public hearing as 
well, sir. It's an amendment to the Airports Commission 
vending machine policy which was adopted in October 1984. 
Currently we have ten dispensing units in a rack five 
wide by two high for newspapers. 

As the Commission knows, it's taken 
a great deal of work to come up with a very effective 
policy for vending newspaper. Because of the local demand, 
we see the need now to add five additional units on top 
of the existing, so there won't be any space taken up. 
We are using our air rights, if you will, to really put 
on what I think will be the last tier. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Mr. Beaulieu, do you -want 



53 

to say anything? 

You don't make wines too, do you? 

MR. BEAULIEU: Bart Beaulieu, San Jose Mercury 
News . 

Primiarily, I just had some questions 
pertaining to the installation. The first question I 
had, what are the five additional publications that we 
are making the space for? 

MR. COBLENTZ: I hope the Sacramento Bee. 

MR. CONRAD: Good morning, Commission. The 
San Mateo Times has applied, the Times Tribune, which 
is the Palo Alto Newspaper, has applied, and two or three 
other newspapers have also applied. 

I believe we are at 16 or 17 right now. 
We are looking at the possibility of 
coming back with something dealing with some additional 
applications in the future. We haven't wrestled with 
that issue, but we feel the first step here is to go to 
the first step without increasing the size. 

DR. GOOSBY: You mean with the new five? 

MR. CONRAD: With the new five we have 15. 

DR. GOOSBY: You've got 15 racks. You have 
about 16? 

MR. CONRAD: We have about six or eight 
applications pending right now, above the existing ten 
newspapers that are there. 

MR. COBLENTZ: Ten different newspapers there. 
MR. CONRAD: Yes, sir. 



54 



DR. GOOSBY: Above the ten, all right. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: All right. 

DR. GOOSBY: So, you haven't approved the 



five yet? 



MR. TURPEN: We haven't got space for them. 

MR. CONRAD: We have ten now, but we have 
applications now from, I believe, six additional papers. 

DR. GOOSBY: And we have some general criteria 
that we will have space from the airport? Don't I recall 
that? 

MR. COBLENTZ: Yes. 

MR. TURPEN: Yes, sir, we do. 

DR. GOOSBY: We have some sort of general 
criteria . 

MR. COBLENTZ: What's the objection from 
the Mercury News on this? 

MR. BEAULIEU: Right now, we just want to 
know what the ground rules are, what is going to determine 
if we are going to install and allow 15, and we have an 
additional, as many as six applications. What will the 
criteria be? 

MR. TURPEN: We might provide you with a 
copy of the Commission policy. 

As a matter of fact, Skip, I don't know 
if you have a copy. 

DR. GOOSBY: Aren't you out there now? 

MR. BEAULIEU: I believe we are. 

The other question is will the color 



55 

and the style racks remain the same that are there, and 
who will be doing the installation work on the new mounts? 

MR. CONRAD: The color and the style will 
remain the same. That's in the vending policy. The color 
will be determined by the Design Review Committee, based 
on the color of the particular terminal building. 

I think each of the tiers may be a different 
color. It's the responsibility of the newspaper companies 
to provide the racks and to paint the machines. This 
is something that actually gives the newspaper companies 
a break, because we are actually building vending alcoves 
in all instances. 

DR. GOOSBY: They paint to our specification. 

MR. CONRAD: They paint to our specifications. 
They do the additional mounts, and they provide the machines 

MR. BEAULIEU: So they will be doing their 
own installation, and we provide the stands that are 
required and the -- 

MR. CONRAD: The newspaper companies do the 
installation of the racks. There is no effort on the 
airport's part. 

DR. GOOSBY: In other words, you pay for 
it. 

MR. BEAULIEU: That's fine, the installation 
of the rack, but before you can install a rack you have 
to have a certain mount. And in this case we are totally 
changing the style of the mount, which is going to be 
a three-tier module. 



56 

MS. TSOUGARAKIS: Could we suggest the 
technical details be reviewed off lines? 

MR. TURPEN: I suggest you get together with 
Mr. Conrad after the meeting and we can provide you with 
whatever information you need. 

MR. BEAULIEU: Okay. Fine. Thank you. 
MR. BEAULIEU: Mr. Romero? 
MR. COBLENTZ: Of the Times Tribune. 
MR. ROMERO: Good morning, Mr. President, 
members of the Commission. I brought a copy of the paper 
we are talking about. I am going to leave it hear with 
your secretary so the Commission can review what we are 
talking about. 

In reference to the speaker that preceded 
me, I am not going to go into details, because everything 
that -- most of the questions that he was referring to, 
it was proposed in an amendment that the Directors of 
the Airport explain. 

Everything is in here. If he would 
have read this particular document, all those answers 
would have been answered, all those questions. 

Mainly I'm in here, sir, to strongly 
endorse the proposal of this amendment by the Director 
of the Airport Commission, Mr. Turpen. We really applaud, 
and we feel he's fulfilling a big need for the service 
of all the users of the San Francisco Airport. 
MR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you. 
Henry Ford? 



57 

MR. FORD: I decline at this particular time. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: Then James Parks. 

MR. PARKS: Are we still on Item 21? 

I just want to make one comment here 
in regards to the mounts that these racks are going to 
be placed on. They're tilt-back, in most cases, and when 
we get to the third level the mounts do need to be changed. 
When we get to the third level somebody is going to be 
reaching far back and awfully high in order to get a paper 
out of one of the units. 

If it's in the top unit, they're going 
to have great difficulty in getting the paper out by the 
time you get to the third. 

MR. COBLENTZ: Maybe he has an answer. 
Dick? 

MR. CONRAD: We checked with the manufacturer 
of the machines. The mounts do have to be changed, which 
is something like a foot and a half high now before the 
first dispensing device is installed. 

They would be lowered approximately 
four inches, and that would mean that the third rack would 
be about this high. 

So you don't have to be Wilt Chamberlain 
to buy the top newspaper. 

MR. PARKS: There's going to be a modification? 

MR. CONRAD: There would be a modification. 

MR. PARKS: The skirt only goes around the 
mount . 



Also, I'd like to make one comment here. 
Investor's Daily, whom I've represented on numerous occasions 
eight applications, submitted all proper paper work for 
one reason or another, and we would very much like to 
be in the airport. 

Thank you. 
MR. BERNSTEIN: Fine. Thank you. 

Mr. Ford, did you say yes? 
MR. FORD: No, I decline. 

MR. BERNSTEIN: You decline. Thank you. 
It's under advisement, so that that 
handles that. 

MR. TURPEN: Yes, sir. 
MR. BERNSTEIN: Anything further? 
MR. TURPEN: No, sir. 
MR. BERNSTEIN: Shall we adjourn? 
MR. COBLENTZ : We have a closed session. 
MR. BERNSTEIN: Ladies and gentlemen, that 
concludes the public hearing session of the Airports 
Commission meeting. 

(Whereupon at 10:30 o'clock a.m. the 
proceedings were adjourned.) 

0O0 



59 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 

) ss . 
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA ) 

I, the undersigned, a Notary Public of the State 
of California, hereby certify that the foregoing Public 
Hearing was taken at the time and place herein stated; 
that the proceedings of said Public Hearing were reported 
by me, a Certified Shorthand Reporter and disinterested 
person, and were thereafter transcribed under my direction 
into typewriting; that the foregoing is a full, complete 
and true record of said hearing. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for either or any of the parties in the foregoing 
Public Hearing, nor am I in any way interested in the 
outcome of the cause named herein. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 
and affixed my seal this 10th day of September, 1985. 




OFFICIAL SEAL 

■' r;:R^SW0RT'r; 

Nv - r. r" -UBUC - C>" LIR. ,:., . 

AlAMSDA CC. i JTY 
' yCon-T ExcMfMjun«28, 1988 




Wfrl 



MM 



ERA FARNSWORTH 
CSR #3208 - Notary Public 
State of California 



BAY AREA COURT REPORTERS (415) 278-800S 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




MINUTES 



AUGUST 20, 1985 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

DEC 1 8 1985 

PUBLIC LIBRARY 



DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

WILLIAM K. COBLENTZ 

Vice-President 

DR. Z.L. GOOSBY 

J. EDWARD FLEISHELL 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 



LOUIS A.TURPEINJ 

Director of Airports 



San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

August 20, 1985 



Calendar 
Section 


Agenda 
Item 


Title 


A. 




CALL TO ORDER: 


B. 




ROLL CALL: 


C. 




ADOPTION OF MINUTES 



Resolution 

Number Page 



Regular meetings of 85-0258 

July 2 and July 16, 1985 85-0259 3 

D. ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 3 

E. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

1. Unregulated Smarte Carte 

Collectors 4 

2. Report on Conditions of 
Employee Parking Lots 

"CC" and "D" 4 

3. Child Care Center for 

Employees 4-6 

F. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 6 

G. POLICY: 

4. Modification of Airport 
Rules & Regulations: 
Rental Car Company Courtesy 

Vehicles 85-0260 7 

5. Resolution Amending Vend- 
ing Machine Policy 85-0261 

H. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

6. Resolution Awarding Airport 

Motor Coach Service Agreement 7 

7. Public Automobile Parking 
Facilities Operating Agree- 
ment Prequalification List 85-0262 7-8 



Minutes, August 20, 1985, Page 1 



Calendar Agenda Resolution 

Section Item Title Number Page 



8. Resolution Awarding Finan- 
cial Services Lease 85-0263 8 

I. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

9. Design Review Approval - 
South Terminal Principal 
Concession Shops on 

Boarding Areas "A" and "B" 85-0264 8 

10. Rejection of Bids and 
Authorization to Rebid 
Contract No. 1573: Con- 
crete Divider at Boarding 

Area "D" Tunnel 85-0265 9 

11. Award of Contract No. 905: 
Improvement to Water Supply 
System North Field Area - 

Phase I 85-0266 9 

12. Resolution Modifying Lease 
and Use Agreement - Eastern 

Air Lines, Inc. 85-0267 9 

13. Request for Approval of 
Travel/Training for Air- 
ports Commission Representatives 85-0268 9 

14. Retirement Resolution - 

Evelyn Monroe 85-0269 9 

J. PUBLIC HEARING: 

15. Fiscal Year 1985/86 

Rates and Charges 9-10 

K. CORRESPONDENCE: 10 

L. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED 

SESSION: 10 



Minutes, August 20, 1985, Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

August 20, 1985 



A. CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:00 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



B. ROLL CALL: 

Present: 

Absent: 



Morris Bernstein 
Z. L. Goosby 
J. Edward Fleishell 
Athena Tsougarakis 

William K. Coblentz 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The minutes of the following regular meetings of the Airports Commission 
were adopted by order of the Commission President. 



No. 85-0258 
No. 85-0259 



July 2, 1985 
July 16, 1985 



D. ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 



In accordance with Section 54957.1 of 
the Brown Act, Jean Caramatti , 
Commission Secretary, announced 
unanimous adoption of resolution 
numbers 85-0256 and 85-0257 regarding 
the settlement of litigated claims at 
the closed session of August 6, 1985. 



Minutes, August 20, 1985. Page 3 



E. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

1. Unregulated Smarte Carte Collectors 

Report on unregulated Smarte Carte 
collectors and enforcement measures 
implemented by Airport Police. 

Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director, said that emphasis has been placed 
on controlling the unauthorized activity with respect to the 
operation of Smarte Cartes at the Airport. He said he has personally 
observed the Airport police in this activity. The Commission will 
receive a follow-up report on November 19. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked if this was due to an insufficent 
number of Smarte Carte employees. 

Mr. Turpen responded that many of the 70,000 passengers that pass 
through the Airport each day rent carts and abandon them in the 
garage or at other locations on the Airport. This situation presents 
an opportunity for youths to come to the Airport and retrieve those 
carts for the money. He explained that the problem is not with the 
youths returning the abandoned carts but in soliciting carts from 
passengers and attempting to sell carts to passengers rather than 
allowing them to purchase the carts from dispensers. He said that 
the situation has accelerated to an unacceptable point and the 
recommendation before the Commission is designed to correct the 
situation. 



2. Report on Conditions of Employee Parking Lots "CC" and "D" 

Mr. Turpen said the Airport has corrected those conditions which were 
of concern to employees. Mr. Turpen called the Commission's 
attention to the police report attached to his memo which indicates 
the level of security in the employee parking lot. 

Mr. Turpen said he considered this matter closed unless the 
Commission wanted a follow-up report. 

Commissioner Bernstein complimented Dennis Bouey, Deputy Director for 
Facilities, Operations and Maintenance, on the fine job he did on 
this assignment. 

No follow-up report was requested. 



3. Child Care Center for Employees 

Mr. Turpen said that Art Pulaski, Secretary of the San Mateo County 
Labor Council, approached him on the idea of a child care facility in 
the vicinity of the Airport that they would like to pursue in 
conjunction with the Child Care Coordinating Council of San Mateo 
County. 

Mr. Turpen said Mr. Pulaski would like the Commission's endorsement 
as well as a commitment to publicize the facility to Airport and 
tenant employees. He said that if the Commission had no objection 



Minutes, August 20, 1985, Page 4 



he would present a resolution at the next meeting endorsing this 
concept with the understanding that the Airport might put out a 
notice to employees about the facility. 

Mr. Steven Mills, United Airlines employee, supported the work of the 
San Mateo Central Labor Council as coordinated by Art Pulaski and 
Jane Battles. He said both he and his wife work for United and have 
a 20-month old son. He said they are once again attempting to find 
adequate child care in the area. He explained that they were not 
satisfied with the facilities, the help or the cost of the first 
child care center they chose. Mr. Mills said they were very pleased 
with the current child care center, run by a licensed woman out of 
her home, however, she was moving out of the area where insurance 
costs were lower and more easily obtainable and the money she charged 
would go farther. 

Mr. Mills said that a child care facility would have limitless 
benefits in terms of improved productivity in the form of higher 
attendance rates for parents. He said this has been demonstrated in 
studies performed throughout the country. 

Mr. Mills strongly urged the Commission to support a child care 
faci 1 i ty at the Airport. 

Mr. Art Pulaski, Executive Secretary of the San Mateo Labor Council, 
thanked Mr. Turpen for his interest and foresight in working with 
them on this issue. He said they valued his participation and 
cooperation. Mr. Pulaski said that there are many who consider this 
to be a milestone in child care and in Airport-employee relations. 
SFIA will be the first Airport to be engaged in such a project. 
SFIA, which has the largest concentration of employees in the Bay 
Area, has very unique problems. He felt that in terms of employee 
relations it makes good economic sense and good management sense to 
have an efficient, well-operated, near-by child care facility. 



Commissioner Goosby asked Mr. Pulaski if the San Mateo Labor Council 
still opposed the formation of a high school student intern program 
at the Airport. He said that both the San Mateo and San Francisco 
School Districts were to participate in this program. 

Mr. Pulaski responded that the issue preceeded his tenure with the 
Labor Council and he was not familiar with the program but would look 
into it. He said that, in general, one of the biggest concerns of 
the participating local unions is the question of whether or not the 
project will in any way interfere with the hours of work of the 
members of the bargaining unit. 

Commissioner Goosby said that he never received a definitive reason 
as to why the program was opposed by the union. He said that faculty 
had already identified students for this program and it was a great 
disservice to them. Commissioner Goosby said he was amaze'd and 
disappointed at labor's opposition to the program. Commissioner 
Goosby said that although he was in favor of the child care facility 
he wanted the membership to recall that they opposed the student 
program and that it was a thorn in his side. 

Mr. Pulaski said that whenever it can the membership supports 
training programs for youths. He said that he, as a representative 
of his Council, sits on a board for joint training for youth. He 
told the Commission he will look into the issue. 



Minutes, August 20, 1985, Page 5 



Commissioner Tsougarakis asked if the childcare facility would be 
located off -Airport. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the Airport's Lease and Use Agreement with 
the airlines precludes the Airport from getting involved in any 
business other than that of operating an airport. He said Mr. 
Pulaski asked him if there was any available space on the Airport for 
such a facility. Mr. Turpen responded that no space has been 
identified and he encouraged Mr. Pulaski to look at areas adjacent to 
the Airport, possibly San Bruno or Mi 1 1 brae . He said it is not the 
Airport's intent to enter into a joint venture as it is precluded in 
the Lease and Use Agreement. He said that if the Airport had 
available space that was not required for Airport purposes he would 
not be adverse to looking into the possibility of leasing that space 
to them. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis was afraid an on-Airport facility might 
create additional traffic problems. 

Mr. Turpen felt that the possibility of finding a satisfactory 
on-Airport location which met all the criteria is virtually 
non-existent, as staff's initial review has indicated. 

The Commission was unanimous in its agreement to support the concept. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if the Airport would monitor the 
faci 1 i ty. 

Mr. Turpen responded that from a business standpoint this would be a 
separate entity. 

Commissioner Bernstein was concerned about the problems that have 
occurred at other child care facilities around the country. 

Commissioner Goosby reminded the Commission that two or three years 
ago a group of former school teachers operating two child care 
centers approached staff about the possibility of opening a child 
care center in the Airport. He said that at that time it was not 
deemed feasible. He added that the center would not only have cared 
for children of employees but children of passengers who had long 
layovers or delays. 



F. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

There were no items initiated by the Commission, 



Minutes, August 20, 1985, Page 6 



POLICY: 

The following items were unanimously adopted. 

4. Modification of Airport Rules & Regulations: 
Rental Car Company Courtesy Vehicles 

No. 85-0260 Adoption of proposed modification of 

the Airport Rules and Regulations 
requiring all rental car shuttle buses 
to operate on the upper level terminal 
roadway only. 



5. Resolution Amending Vending Machine Policy 

No. 85-0261 Resolution adopting comprehensive 

amendments to the San Francisco 
International Airport Vending Machine 
Pol icy. 



H. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 
The following item was put over without discussion. 

6. Resolution Awarding Airport Motor Coach Service Agreement 

The following items were unanimously adopted. 

7. Public Automobile Parking Facilities Operating Agreement - 
Prequal if ication List 

No. 85-0262 Resolution to approve the exclusive 

list of firms prequalified to bid on 
the Public Automobile Parking 
Facilities Operation Agreement. 

Mr. Turpen reminded the Commission that at the August 6 Commission 
meeting they were presented with a recommendation to qualify seven 
firms and to disqualify Parking Company of America. He said that 
Airport staff has reviewed Parking Company of America's supplemental 
submission and continues to recommend against their inclusion in the 
bidder pool . 

Ms. Helen Monat, representative for Parking Company of America, said 
that the supplemental information was given to staff last Monday, as 
agreed. That Friday, Parking Company of America was notified by Skip 
Conrad of Airport staff that they were not qualified. She said that 
Mr. Conrad indicated at that time that staff had additional questions. 



Minutes, August 20, 1985, Page 7 



Ms. Monat said that Ms. Gittens felt that they met the minimum 

qualifications but did not feel certain questions had been adequately 

responded to. She complained that this is the second list of 
questions. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said that staff was not asking a second set 
of questions; they were asking for clarification of the original 
responses. She said that the questions had not been answered 
properly the first time and adequate clarification was not given in 
the supplemental. She felt that was a manifestation of the fact that 
Parking Company of America was not prepared to be qualified as a 
bidder. Commissioner Tsougarakis agreed with the staff 
recommendation. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis explained that the only reason she 
recommended the item be put over was because she did not feel Parking 
Company of America received proper notification the first time. She 
said that was not true in this instance. She added that their 
responses were reviewed by staff and the Commission. 



Commissioner Tsougarakis was excused from voting on the following item by 
the Commission. Item 8 was unanimously approved. 

8. Resolution Awarding Financial Services Lease 

No. 85-0263 Resolution awarding Financial Services 

Lease to Bank of America NT&SA. 

Mr. Turpen said staff sent out information to virtually every bank 
and savings and loan in the state and the Bank of America submitted 
the only bid. 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

The following items were unanimously adopted. 

9. Design Review Approval - South Terminal Principal Concession Shops on 
Boarding Areas "A" and "B" 

No. 85-0264 Resolution approving the schematic 

design of the South Terminal Principal 
Concession retail shops on Boarding 
Areas "A" and "B" operated by Host 
International . 



Minutes, August 20, 1985, Page 8 



10. Rejection of Bids and Authorization to Rebid Contract No. 1573. 
Concrete Divider at Boarding Area "D" Tunnel 

No. 85-0265 Resolution rejecting all bids for 

Contract No. 1573 and authorizing the 
Director of Airports to call for bids 
when ready. 5 



11. Award of Contract No. 905: 

Improvement to Water Supply System 
North Field Area - Phase I 

No. 85-0266 Resolution awarding Contract No. 905 

to W.J. Gaffney, Inc. in the amount of 
$481,175.00 

Eight bids were received on June 27, 
1985 ranging from $481,175.00 to 
$632,285.00. 



12. Resolution Modifying Lease and Use Agreement - Eastern Air Lines, Inc 

No. 85-0267 Resolution modifying Lease and Use 

Agreement No. 82-0116 between Airport 
and Eastern Air Lines, Inc. 



13. Request for Approval of Travel /Training for Airports Commission 
Representative 

No. 85-0268 



14. Retirement Resolution - Evelyn Monroe 
No. 85-0269 



PUBLIC HEARING: 

The following item was put over to the September 3 meeting, 

15. Fiscal Year 1985/86 Rates and Charges 



Hearing concerning the establishment 
of (1) terminal rental rates; and, (2) 
commercial and general aviation 
landing fee rates for Fiscal y ear 
1985/86 and beyond. 



Minutes, August 20, 1985, Page 9 



Mr. Turpen explained that the San Francisco Progress failed to 
publish a notice regarding this public hearing on the rates and 
charges. Since the City Charter mandates that notification of a 
public hearing appear in the Progress , the official City paper, prior 
to the hearing date he recommended putting the item over to the 
September 3 meeting. 

The Commission agreed. 



K. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission. 



ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 9:28 a.m. to go into closed session. 



Jean Caramatti 
/.Commission Secretary 



Minutes, August 20, 1985, Page 10 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




MINUTES 



SEPTEMBER 3, 1985 



DOC ? 

DEC i 8 1985 






DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

WILLIAM K. COBLENTZ 

Vice-President 

DR. Z.L. GOOSBY 

J. EDWARD FLEISHELL 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 



LOUIS A.TURPEN 

Director of Airports 



San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

September 3, 1985 



Calendar 
Section 


Agenda 
Item 


Title 


A. 




CALL TO ORDER: 


B. 




ROLL CALL: 


C. 




SPECIAL ITEMS: 




1. 


Resolution to Rename 
Road R-3 




2. 


Commendation for 
Marcel (Skip) Conrad 


D. 




ITEMS INITIATED BY COM 


E. 




ITEMS RELATING TO ADMI 



Resolution 
Number 



OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

Tenant Improvement: 
United Airlines Maintenance 
and Operations Center Cogen- 
eration Plant 

Tenant Improvement: 
United Airl ines North 
Terminal Passenger Ser- 
vice Center for Ticket 
Dispensing 

Award of Contract No. 1439 
Pavement Overlay - Parking 
Lot "D" 

Reimbursement or Rental 
Credit to PSA for Replace- 
ment of Existing Blast 
Fences. Maximum: $200,000. 

Approval of Tenant Improve- 
ment Guide Supplement No. 2 

CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 



85-0270 
85-0271 



85-0272 

85-0273 
85-0274 

85-0275 
85-0276 



Page 

3 

3 



4-5 

5 
5 



Minutes, September 3, 1985. Page 1 



Calendar Agenda Resolution 

Section Item Title Number Page 

8. Child Care Center for San 
Francisco International 

Airport Employees 5 

9. Approval of Bid Call and 
Construction Budget: 
Contract 1410-G, Passenger 
Pickup Area, West Entrance 

Building 85-0277 6 

10. Exercise Option Provided 
in Professional Services 
Agreement to Extend Con- 
tract Time for 12 Months 
for Contracts with Gerson/ 

Overstreet and Daniel , 85-0279 6 

Mann, Johnson & Mendenhall 85-0278 6 

11. Request for Approval of 
Travel /Training for Air- 
ports Commission Repre- 
sentatives 85-0280 6 

G. PUBLIC HEARING: 

12. Fiscal Year 1985/86 

Rates and Charges 6 

13. Amendment to the Airport's 
Rules and Regulations Relating 
to Ground Transportation 
Operations Not Authorized 

by the Airports Commission 7-8 

H. CORRESPONDENCE: 8 

J. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO 

CLOSED SESSION: 8 



Minutes, September 3, 1985, Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

September 3, 1985 



A. CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:00 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



B. ROLL CALL: 



Present: William K. Coblentz 

Z. L. Goosby 
J. Edward Fleishell 
Athena Tsougarakis 

Absent: Morris Bernstein 



C. SPECIAL ITEM: 

The following items were unanimously adopted. 

1. Resolution to Rename Road R-3 

No. 85-0270 Resolution naming Airport Road R-3 

after former Airport Commission 
President William E. McDonnell. 



2. Commendation for Marcel (Skip) Conrad 

No. 85-0271 Resolution regarding the resignation 

of Marcel (Skip) Conrad as Head 
Property Manager, Business & Finance- 



Minutes, September 3, 1985, Page 3 



D. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

There were no items initiated by Commissioners, 



E. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

The following items were unanimously adopted. 

3. Tenant Improvement: 

United Airlines Maintenance and Operations Center Cogeneration Plant 
No. 85-0272 $20,000,000.00. T-2991 . Revenue 

Agreement involved. 

Commissioner Goosby asked how much revenue the Airport would gain. 

Dennis Bouey, Acting Director of Airports, responded that the Airport 
would receive 1.25 percent based on a formula derived by United 
Airlines and concurred with by staff. 

Mr. Bouey explained that United is building the cogeneration plant on 
the grounds of the MOC and the Airport is retaining the ground rent 
of approximately $17,000. He said that this money would be in 
addition to the rental fee. He explained that the transmission lines 
connecting the cogeneration facility with the PG&E substation crosses 
Airport property in two locations. In return for allowing United to 
cross Airport property we will be allowed to hook up to the 
cogeneration facility at no charge. This will enable us to use their 
power in emergency situations. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked about the sale of electricity. 

Mr. Bouey responded that the purpose of the cogeneration plant is to 
generate steam through the use of turbines to run the MOC. He 

explained that electricity is a by-product and will be sold to PG&E. 

He explained that the Airport will receive a royalty from that sale. 

Commissioner Coblentz said this is an exciting project and United is 
to be commended. 



4. Tenant Improvement: 

United Airlines North Terminal Passenger Service Center For Ticket 
Di spensing 

No. 85-0273 $30,000.00. T-3028. No Rental Credit, 



5. Award of Contract No. 1439 

Pavement Overlay - Parking Lot "D" 

No. 85-0274 Resolution awarding Airport Contract 

No. 1439 to Stacy and Witbeck, Inc., 
Westbay Contractor' s Engineers, Inc., 



Minutes, September 3, 1985, Page 4 



a Joint Venture in the amount of 
$1,007,617.45. 

Six bids were received on August 15. 
1985 ranging from $935,275.00 to 
$1,015,951.00. 



6. Reimbursement of Rental Credit to PSA for Replacement of Existing 
Blast Fences. Maximum: $200,00.00 

No. 85-0275 



7. Approval of Tenant Improvement Guide Supplemental No. 2 

No. 85-0276 Resolution approving and adopting the 

"Tenant Improvement Guide Supplement 
No. 2." 

The supplement will update the Guide 
to reflect needed guidelines over: 

A. Hazardous substances storage 
and transfer in underground 
tanks and pipelines; 

B. Regulations on sewage and 
industrial waste water 
discharges into the Airport 
systems; 

C. Telephone provisions in 
Airport building space. 



F. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

The following item was put over. 

8. Child Care Center for San Francisco International Airport 
Employees. 

Resolution endorsing the need of a 
Child Care Center for Airport 
employees. 

Commissioner Goosby asked that this item be put over until 
Mr. Turpen receives a response to a letter he sent to the San 
Mateo Labor Coalition regarding their lack of support for staff's 
efforts to institute a high school student intern program at the 
Airport. 

Mr. Bouey said he would forward a copy of the response to 
Commissioner Goosby when it is received. 



Minutes, September 3, 1985, Page 5 



The following items were unanimously adopted. 

9. Approval of Bid Call and Construction Budget: 
Contract 1410-G 
Passenger Pick-up Area, West Entrance Building 

No. 85-0277 Resolution approving bid call and 

budget for construction of an 
outdoor passenger pickup area near 
the lower level entrance to the 
West Entrance Building of South 
Terminal . 



10. Exercise Option Provided in Professional Services Agreement to 
Extend Contract Time for 12 Months for Contract with: 

No. 85-0279 1. Gerson/Overstreet , Architects 

for Tunnels A & C and demolition 
of Pier "e". 

No. 85-0278 2. Daniel, Mann, Johnson & 

Mendenhall, Engineers for South 
Terminal Aircraft Aprons, Phase 
II. 

No change in contract costs. 



11. Request for Approval of Travel/Training for Airports Commission 
Representatives 

No. 85-0280 



G. PUBLIC HEARING: 

12. Fiscal Year 1985/86 Rates and Charges 

Public hearing concerning the 
establishment of: 1) terminal 
rental rates; and, 2) commercial and 
general aviation landing fee rates 
for Fiscal Year 1985/86 and beyond. 

Commissioner Goosby commended staff on the fine job they did. 

Mr. Bouey commented that the increases are largely attributable to 
increases in debt service and not operating cost. 



Minutes, September 3, 1985, Page 6 



13. Amendment to the Airport's Rules and Regulations Relating to Ground 
Transportation Operators Not Authorized by the Airports Commission. 

Commissioner Coblentz asked Mr. James Clapp if he wished to address 
the Commission. 

Mr. Clapp, attorney for Lorries Travel and Tours, said Lorries felt 
this is a good program in which to help with the regulation of 
permitted and non-permitted ground transportation operators at the 
Airport. He said that Lorries did have some questions not 
addressed in material submitted to ground transportation operators 
but otherwise had no opposition. 

Mr. Clapp said that his main question had to do with the issuance 
of those permits. He said that Lorries has been a ground 
transportation operator at the Airport for over 10 years. They 
operate under two State licenses, a Charter Party Permit and a 
Passenger Stage Operator, which allows them to operate individual 
fare services to and from San Francisco Airport. He said that the 
individual fare service is operated both as a scheduled and 
on-demand carrier. Mr. Clapp said that the fact that Lorries is 
competing with the Airporter for passengers to and from the Airport 
adds to the confusion and somewhat discriminating enforcement 
against Lorries operations at the Airport. 

Mr. Clapp said that the proposed rules is a good opportunity to try 
to clarify Lorries' position as well as that of other operators. 
He explained that Lorries is distinguishable from operations such 
as Luxor and Yellow in the fact that it has a scheduled service 
from the Airport into San Francisco as opposed to the exclusive 
on-demand services of the other two van services. 

Mr. Clapp said the Director has the authority to enter into written 
contracts with ground operators to issue permits to operate at the 
Airport. He said that the only two requirements stated were that 
the operator have a state license and that the appropriate fees be 
paid to the Airport. He said there was no clarification as to 
whether the authority given to the Director is discretionary or 
automatic upon the application of the state licensed ground 
operator. 

Mr. Bouey said that perhaps Mr. Clapp should contact Sheldon Fein 
of Airport Landside Operations who would be able to respond to his 
specific questions. He said that the issue at hand is simply a 
point of clarification. He explained that the current language 
provides for a designated spot for the non-permitted services but 
did not prohibit them from parking elsewhere. 

Mr. Clapp called attention to two clerical errors. The first was 
in section 1.1.121, second line, and should read Passenger Stage 
Certificate. The second error is to Appendix B, Section 1.4.7, 
line 4, which should read Passenger Stage Certificate rather than 
Stagecoach Permit. 

Mr. Clapp said he would direct his other concerns to Mr. Fein. 



Minutes, September 3, 1985, Page 7 



Commissioner Goosby asked if limousines coming out to the Airport 
on a pre-arranged basis pick up their passengers on the upper level 
roadway while taxis, which pick up passengers on a random basis, 
use the lower level . 

Mr. Bouey said that was correct. He explained that this does not 
change the method of operation, it is merely a clarification of a 
technicality. 



H. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission, 



* * * 



I. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 9:12 A.M. to go into closed session. 



Jean Caramatti 
Commission Secretary 



Minutes, September 3, 1985, Page 8 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




MINUTES 



SEPTEMBER 17, 1985 



DOCL 



PUBU 



DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

WILLIAM K. COBLENTZ 

Vice-President 

DR. Z.L. GOOSBY 

J. EDWARD FLEISHELL 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 



LOUIS A.TURPEN 

Director of Airports 



San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

September 17, 1985 



Calendar 
Section 


Agenda 
Item 


Title 


A. 




CALL TO ORDER: 


B. 




ROLL CALL: 


C 




ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 



August 20, 1985 
September 3, 1985 

SPECIAL ITEMS: 

1 . Election of Officers 

ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 
POLICY: 

2. Amendments to the Airport's 
Rules & Regulations Relating 
to Ground Transportation Oper- 
ators Not Permitted by the 
Airports Commission 

3. San Francisco International 
Aviation Exhibition 

ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

4. Resolution Awarding Operating 
Agreement for Public Automobile 
Parking Faci 1 i ties 

5. Adoption of Fiscal Year 
1985/86 Rates & Charges 

6. Authorization to Receive 
Bids for Lease of Mobile 
Catering in the Taxi Staging 
Area of the Garage 

7. Award of Contract No. 1435A 
Reconstruct Taxiways "A" 
and "B", Phase I 



Resolution 




Number 


Page 




3 




3 


85-0282 




85-0283 


3 


85-0284 


3 




10 



85-0285 
85-0286 



85-0287 
85-0281. 

85-0288 
85-0289 



4 

4-5 



5 
5 

5-6 



Minutes, September 17, 1985, Page 1 



Calendar Agenda Resolution 

Section Item Title Number Page 

8. Award of South Terminal 

Shoeshine Lease 85-0290 6-7 

9. Request Authorization to 
Enter into Permits with 
Tenants for the Sale of 

Lottery Tickets 85-0291 7 

10. Selection of Consultants 
for Preparation of Airport 
Master Plan and Environ- 
mental Impact Study 85-0292 7-8 

11. Type II Modifications for 85-0293 
Three South Terminal Com- 85-0294 

plex Construction Contracts 85-0295 8 

12. Professional Services Agree- 
ment, Dieter C. Rapp, Interior 
Planting Consultant Modification 

No. 5 - $7,500.00 85-0296 9 

13. Transfer of Funds to Art 
Commission for the Purchase 

of Five Models of San Francisco 

Architectural Landmarks by 

Don Potts - $75,000.00 85-0297 9 

H. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

14. Retirement Resolution for 

Henry Cosmos 85-0298 9 

15. Statistical Adjustments 
for 1985-86 Joint Use 
Billings under Lease and 

Use Agreement 85-0299 9 

16. 12-Month Renewal of 
Professional Services 
Agreement with Howard A. 
Friedman at No Additional 

Cost 85-0300 9 

17. Close-Out of Contract No. 788 
Extension and Redesignation of 

Taxiway 'A' and 'B' " 85-0301. 10 

18. Request for Approval of 
Travel/Training for Air- 
ports Commission Represen- 
tatives 85-0302 10 

I. CORRESPONDENCE: 10 

J. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED 

SESSION: 11 



Minutes, September 17, 1985, Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

September 17, 1985 



CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:00 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



B. ROLL CALL: 



Present: Morris Bernstein 

William K. Coblentz 

Z. L. Goosby 

J. Edward Fleishell 



Athena Tsougarakis arrived at 9:12 a.m. 



C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The Minutes of the regular meetings of August 20, 1985 and September 3, 
1985, were adopted by order of the Commission President. 

No. 85-0282 
No. 85-0283 



D. SPECIAL ITEM: 

1 . Election of Officers 

No. 85-0284 

Commissioners Bernstein and Coblentz were unanimously elected 
President and Vice President respectively. 



Minutes, September 17, 1985, Page 3 



F. POLICY: 

The following items were unanimously adopted. 

2. Amendments to the Airport's Rules and Regulations Relating to Ground 
Transportation Operators Not Permitted by the Airprts Commission. 

No. 85-0285 

Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director, explained that this was as a result 
of the September 3 public hearing where staff recommended to the 
Commission certain changes to the Airport Rules and Regulations 
concerning ground transportation. He said that the changes related 
primarily to the red and white zones on the upper level roadway and 
have been outlined in the Commission agenda packages. 

3. San Francisco International Airport Aviation Exhibition 

No. 85-0286 Resolution regarding the establishment 

of a permanent Aviation Exhibition and 
installation of display aircraft at 
the San Francisco International 
Airport. 

Mr. Turpen explained that Delta Airlines will be vacating the North 
Terminal within the next 18 to 24 months. He said that that portion 
of the Delta area facing the North Terminal connector does not lend 
itself to ticket counters and will be used for an aviation exhibition. 

Commissioner Goosby asked how much the Airport will have to pay 
Harrah' s. 

Mr. Turpen responded that nothing will be paid for the airplane. 

Mr. Ron Wilson, Community Affairs Director, added that Harrah 's will 
pay to have the plane transported to SFO. The Airport will incur 
minor expense to support the ceiling in order to hang the airplane. 

Commissioner Coblentz said there will be a small plaque acknowledging 
Mr. Harrah's contribution. 

Mr. Turpen said it will cost the Airport approximately $25,000 to 
make the necessary modifications to the structure in order to insure 
proper installation of the airplane. 

Commissioner Coblentz asked how long the airplane will be on loan. 

Mr. Wilson responded that the Airport is negotiating for a period of 
a year and will renegotiate for an extension and possibly the 
purchase of the aircraft. 

Mr. Turpen added that he would not recommend approval of the $25,000 
expenditure unless there were strong feelings that the exhibition 
would remain at the Airport for a period of time. 



Minutes, September 17, 1985, Page 4 



Mr. Turpen said he would like the authority to proceed and if the 
situation changed he would advise the Commission. 

Commissioner Goosby felt that the length of time the aircraft would 
be on loan should be determined before the $25,000 is spent. 



G. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

The following items were unanimously adopted. 

4. Resolution Awarding Operating Agreement for Public Automobile Parking 
Faci 1 i ties 

No. 85-0287 Resolution awarding Operating 

Agreement for Public Automobile 
Parking facilities to Airport Parking 
Management. 

Mr. Turpen said that a total of seven (7) firms were authorized to 
bid at the completion of the pre-bid requirements. One company did 
not bid and one bidder arrived after the deadline for receipt of bids 
and his bid was not accepted. He said that the successful bidder was 
Airport Parking Management, the current operator. 



5. Adoption of Fiscal Year 1985/86 Rates and Charges 

No. 85-0281 Resolution authorizing the 

establishment of (1) terminal rental 
rates and (2) commercial and general 
aviation landing fee rates for Fiscal 
Year 1985/86 and beyond. Resolution 
also authorizes a $5,910,000 
supplemental appropriation from 
unappropriated surplus to the 
operating fund, as required by the 
Lease & Use Agreement. 



The following item was unanimously adopted as amended. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis arrived during the discussion of this i-tem. 

6. Authorization to Receive Bids for Lease of Mobile Catering in the 
Taxi Staging Area of the Garage. 

No. 85-0288 Resolution approving leasehold 

specifications and authorizing 
Director to receive bids for the Lease 
of Mobile Catering in the Taxi Staging 
Area of the Garage. 



Minutes, September 17, 1985, Page 5 



Commissioner Bernstein asked Mr. William Zaminoff if he wished to 
address the Commission. 

Mr. Zaminoff said that at the pre-bid conference the suggestion was 
made for a one-year lease with two, one-year options. He said that 
the specifications also called for two separate bids for two 
operators and the suggestion was made to amend the specifications to 
allow one bidder to bid on both leases. 

Ms. Angela Gittens, Deputy Director for Business and Finance, 
responded that one bidder could bid on and be awarded both leases. 

Mr. Zaminoff also questioned the requirement calling for experience 
in food management. He argued that the operator of a catering truck 
handles packages not food. He felt that this requirement eliminated 
the individual who wished to start a business. He explained that all 
that is required is to pruchase packaged food from a vendor and sell 
it. 

Commissioner Coblentz asked why there was a requirement for one year 
of experience. 

Ms. Gittens responded that the operator could opt to prepare fresh 
food and would then be handling food and not just packages. 

Commissioner Coblentz felt this would be the perfect opportunity for 
an individual to start a new business and agreed that the experience 
requirement should be eliminated. 

Commissioner Goosby agreed with Commissioner Coblentz although he 
understood why staff wanted to include that requirement in the event 
the operator wanted to prepare fresh food. 

The Commission was unanimous in its desire to amend the specifica- 
tions, eliminating the experience requirement and establishing a 
one-year lease with two, one-year options. 



The following item was unanimously adopted. 

7. Award of Contract No. 1435A 

Reconstruct Taxiways "A" and "B", Phase I 

No. 85-0289 Resolution awarding Airport Contract 

No. 1435A toGhilotti Bros. Inc., in 
the amount of $1 ,022,173.00. 

Four bids were received on August 28, 
1985, ranging from $1,022,173.00 to 
$1,061,553.50. 



The Commission voted unanimously to reject all bids for the following item. 

8. Award of South Terminal Shoeshine Lease 

No. 85-0290 Resolution awarding South Terminal 

Shoeshine Lease to Leather-Care. 



Minutes, September 17, 1985, Page 6 



Mr. William Holmes, Leather Care - SFO, acknowledged the defects in 
their bid but petitioned the Commission to waive them. He assured 
the Commission that his company would carry out the conditions of the 
lease. 

Mr. Walter Caplan and Mr. William Jones of A Step Up complained that 
they were not officially notified of the meeting today. Mr. Caplan 
said that had he not gone out to the Airport and talked to the 
Commission Secretary he would not have known that this item was on 
calendar. 

Mr. Don Garibaldi, Airports General Counsel, responded that he spoke 
with Mr. Caplan on Friday and informed him at that time that the 
meeting was to be held on Tuesday and that this particular item would 
be discussed. 

Commissioner Goosby asked what the procedure was for notifying 
individuals of Commission meetings. 

Jean Caramatti, Commission Secretary, responded that she sends out 
calendars to approximately 190 individuals who have requested to 
receive them on a regular basis. She said that it was her 
understanding that when leases or contracts are being awarded or when 
there are problems with bids, the division responsible for that item 
notifies all interested parties. 

Ms. Gittens added that in the event there is not enough time to send 
out written notification, phone calls are placed to all interested 
parties. She emphasized that staff has been in contact with Mr. 
Caplan on a regular basis and it is possible that a call to 
specifically tell him of the meeting was not placed. 

Mr. Caplan submitted documents to the Commission in an attempt to 
substantiate A Step Up's claim that Leather Care-SFO's bid was 
defective and should be rejected (see attached). 

Ms. Gittens reminded the Commission that although there were several 
technical defects with Leather Care's bid it was within the 
Commission's right to waive those defects. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis felt that there were just too many problems 
with the bid and moved to reject all bids. 



The following items were unanimously adopted. 

9. Requesting Authorization to Enter into Permits with Tenants for the 
Sale of Lottery Tickets 

No. 85-0291 Resolution authorizing issuance of 

permits for the sale of lottery 
tickets at San Francisco Internationa 1 
Airport. 



10. Selection of Consultants for Preparation of Airport Master Plan and 
Environmental Impact Study 

No. 85-0292 Staff and Howard Friedman have 

nominated the following consultants: 



Minutes, September 17, 1985, Page 7 



Daniel, Mann, Johnson, & Mendenhall of 

San Francisco — 

Consultant to prepare Airport 
Master Plan including forecasts, 
evaluation of existing facilities, 
and development of alternatives. 
Budget: $450,000 

Jefferson Associates of San 

San Francisco — 

Consultant to prepare Environmental 
Impact Report. Budget: $100,000. 

Resolution approving nomination and 
authorizing staff to prepare contracts 
for Commission's approval. 

Commissioner Goosby felt the West of Bayshore should be included as 
part of the study. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the Lease and Use Agreement precluded the 
Airport from spending any money on the West of Bayshore other than 
that required to maintain it at its current level. 

Commissioner Fleishell recommended contacting Wally Wortman, Director 
of the Real Estate Department, to suggest he hire Daniel, Mann, 
Johnson & Mendenhall for a West of Bayshore study. 

Mr. Turpen suggested that the Commission might want to discuss this 
with Mayor Feinstein before proceeding. 

Commissioner Bernstein told the Commission that Mayor Feinstein 
appointed a task force on the West of Bayshore but it has not met in 
over two years. He said that the task force consisted of Wally 
Wortman, Dean Macris, Rudy Nothenberg and himself. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis suggested that a letter be sent under 
Commissioner Bernstein's signature to fire up the task force. 

Mr. Turpen felt that a better way to go would be for members of the 
Commission to meet with the Mayor explaining the situation. 

Commissioner Coblentz said that the consensus of the Commission was 
to have Commissioner Bernstein try to get the task force moving and 
for the Commissioners to talk to Wally Wortman about hiring the 
consul tant. 



Type II Modifications for Three South Terminal Complex Construction 
Contracts 

No. 85-0293 Contract modification to provide 

No. 85-0294 additional work for unforeseen 

No. 85-0295 conditions, increased scope, and 

deficiencies in the plans and 
specifications. 

Contract 1410ABCD 
Contract 1410EF 
Contract 1414AB 



Minutes, September 17, 1985, Page 8 



12. Professional Services Agreement 

Dieter C. Rapp, Interior Planting Consultant 
Modification No. 5 - $7,500.00 

No. 85-0296 Resolution approving Modification 

No. 5 to the Professional Services 
Agreement between the City and Dieter 
C. Rapp, Interior Planting Consultant. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if this would be the last modification. 

Mr. Dennis Bouey, Deputy Director for Facilities, Operations and 
Maintenance, responded that it would. He added that as each phase of 
the South Terminal is completed, Airport staff would take over 
maintenance of plants. He said that purchase of those plants is 
provided for in the construction program. 



13. Transfer of Funds to Art Commission for the Purchase of Five Models 
of San Francisco Architectural Landmarks by Don Potts - $75,000 

No. 85-0297 Models include City Hall dome, Golden 

Gate Bridge pylon, Victorian house, 
Hallidie Building, and Golden Gate 
Park. 



H. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

The following items were unanimously adopted. 

14. Retirement Resolution for Henry Cosmos 

No. 85-0298 Resolution expressing best wishes for 

the fullest measure of health, 
happiness and fruitful retirement to 
Henry Cosmos. 



15. Statistical Adjustments for 1985-86 Joint Use Billings under Lease 
and Use Agreement 

No. 85-0299 Resolution adjusting 1985-86 Joint Use 

Billings pursuant to Section 101. W of 
the Airline-Airport Lease and Use 
Agreement for Pride Air, Inc. 



6. 12-Month Renewal of Professional Services Agreement with Howard A. 
Friedman at No Additional Cost 

No. 85-0300 Resolution approving Modification 

No. 7 to Howard Friedman's contract to 
extend contract time to June 30, 
1986. No change in contract amount. 



Minutes, September 17, 1985, Page 9 



17. Close-Out of Contract No. 788 

Extension and Redesignation of Taxiway 'A' and 'B' 

No. 85-0301 Resolution approving extension of time 

and assessment of liquidated damages. 



18. Request for Approval of Travel/Training for Airports Commission 
Representatives 

No. 85-0302 



I. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission. 



ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

Commissioner Tsougarakis was excused from the discussion. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked about the bank lease. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the lease would have to be rebid. 

Ms. Gittens added that the minimum would remain the same. She reminded 
the Commission that this would not attract a lot of competition. 

Commissioner Goosby reminded the Commission that they agreed to the 
figures. 

Commissioner Fleishell suggested the six major banks be called personally. 

Mr. Turpen suggested that that might cause problems; that the entire list 
of 300 banks should be contacted once again. 

Ms. Gittens told the Commission that each of the 300 names would be sent a 
numbered form asking if the proper individual received the specifica- 
tions and if the bank intended to bid on the lease. Any bank not return- 
ing a notice would receive a call from staff. 



Commissioner Tsougarakis asked that the minutes reflect her concurrence with 
the nomination and election of Commissioners Bernstein and Coblentz as 
President and Vice President respectively. 



Minutes, September 17, 1985, Page 10 



J. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 



There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 10:20 A.M. 




Je/an Caramatti 
Commission Secretary 



Minutes, September 17, 1985, Page 11 



Walter H. Caplan 



4IT(l«5lt AT LAW 

ONI ON1TRU NATIONS PLAZA 
SAN FRANCIBCO. CALIFORNIA »«102 

(41S) 42 1-OSOO 



23 August 1985 



Mr. Louis A. Turpen 

Director of Airports 

San Francisco International Airport 

San Francisco, CA 94128 



Re: South Terminal Shoe Shine Service Bid 



Dear Mr. Turpen, 

This letter is a formal protest of the shoe shine service bid submitted by 
Leather Care-SFO. I am writing this on behalf of A Step Up, a partnership 
between myself and Mr. William Jones. 

A Step Up submitted a bid for the shoe shine service lease and we believe we 
have submitted the highest, qualifying bid and should be awarded the lease. 
We believe Leather Care-SFO's bid submitted is defective and should be re- 
jected for the following reasons: 

1 . Cashier's Check Submitted as Bid Bond 

Leather Care-SFO tendered a cashier's check as a bid bond, in 
complete violation of the City's requirements as stated clearly 
in the bid documents. The bid documents unequivocably state 
in at least three places that a bidder only is to submit a 
certified check, an irrevocable letter of credit, or a corporate 
surety bond. Leather Care-SFO did not comply. 

2. Inconsistent Bidder Names Submitted 

The Bid Form identifies the bidder as "Leather Care-SFO." The 
contract of formation submitted is for "Leather Care- Cal i form' a ." 
The bid documents specifically require submittal of a bidder's 
contract of formation. Two separate entities appear to be 
involved, in direct contravention of the bid document requirements. 

3. Apparent Fraud in Partnership Interests 

The Human Rights Commission Form 5 submitted by "Leather Care-SFO" 
lists the bidding entity's ownership share as belonging to 
"Judith Edwards - 51%" and "Richard G. Lee - 492." However, 
the "Joint Venture Agreement" of "Leather Care-California" 
specifically states in Section 8: " Profits and Losses . The 
Partners shall share in profits and shall bear losses equal ly . " 
(Emphasis added.) 

It appears that Leather Care-SFO/Cal ifornia was seeking the 
affirmative action bidder's preference bonus (although it was not 
circled) as a woman-owned entity although profits and losses were 
to be disbursed equally. If so, this would be a serious mis- 
representation and alone should be grounds for disqualification. 



Shoe Shine Protest 

Page Two 

23 August 1985 

4. Incomplete Bid Submittal 

a. No financial statement was submitted for the alleged majority 
partner, Judith Edwards. 

b. No listing of gross sales submitted for the bidding entity's 
last three years (Questionnaire - No. 5) was submitted. 
This is the first substantive question regarding experience 
and it specifically required bidders to identify "...detail as 
to gross receipts for each of the last three (3) years." 

c. Question 6 to the HRC Affirmative Action Questionnaire was not 
answered. 

d. The answer to Question 9 of the City's experience questionnaire 
refers to a "...total of 2_2 persons employed as subcontractors..." 
However, the HRC Workforce Breakdown, Attachment B, only 
identifies two people as employed. 

e. Form IV-B of the City's Qualification Questionnaire fails to 
show where the joint venture is recorded. 

f. The bidding entity was tentatively awarded a 5%-WBE bidders' 
preference at the bid opening. Leather Care's bid was opened 
first. The HRC Form 5 indicated no certification requested 
for MBE, WBE or LBE preference. Why was Leather Care extended 
the 5% preference? 

In light of the above, we respectfully request that Leather Care's bid be 
rejected and the Lease awarded to "A Step Up." 

I will be out of the state the week of September 2-6, 1985. I can be 
reached at my office through Friday August 30, and after Tuesday, September 
10, 1985. If any formal action on this matter is scheduled during this period, 
I request that it be deferred until after I return to San Francisco. 

Thank you for your consideration. 



^ery Truly Yours, 
WALTER CAPLM 



cc: Morris Bernstein 
Will iam Jones 



WHC/tlj 



MORRIS BERNSTEIN 
PRESIDENT 

WILLIAM K. COBLENTZ 
VICE-PRESIDENT 

DR. Z. L. GOOSBY 

J. EDWARD FLEISHELL 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 



AIRPORTS COMMISSION 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 
OIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 



September 13, 1985 







LOUIS A. TURPEN 
DIRECTOR OF AIRPORTS 



Wal ter H. Caplan 

One United Nations Plaza 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

RE: A Step Up 
Protest 

Dear Mr. Caplan: 

Enclosed for your information as per the protest submitted by A Step Up 
against the bid submitted by Leather Care-SFO for the South Terminal 
Shceshine Lease are the following: 

1. Memorandum and Commission Resolution re: Award of South 
Terminal Shoeshine Lease; 

2. Formal protest by A Step Up; 

3. SF Human Rights Commission response to the protest; 

4. William J. 0. Holmes, attorney for Leather Care-SFO, to the 
letter of protest. 



Very truly yours 




Edward J . Linzi 1 la 
Principal Property Manager 



TEL. (415)761-0800 



TELEX 509520 
SFO AIRPORT 



MORRIS BERNSTEIN 
PflESDENT 

W1LUAM K. COBLENTZ 
VICE-PRESIDENT 

DR. Z. L. GOOSBY 

J. EDWARD FLEISHELL 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 



A!r,?C?.T3 gc: 

i..'3: 



AIRPORTS COMMISSION, 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCI 1 
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATtON' L AIRPORT 
SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94128 




^S^ S ^23» 1985 



LOUIS A. TURPEN 
DIRECTOR OF AJRPORTS 



Mr. Robin Chiang 

Group 4/Architecture 

Research and Planning, Inc. 

457 Forbes Blvd. , 

So. San Francisco, CA 94080 



Subject 



Contract 1410H 

West Entrance Shoeshine Stand 



Dear Robin: 

As 

City 

ceiling, wall and floor finishes in a "high tech" design style. 



is we discussed with Kent Edwards of Leathercraft^ this mornjjig«f the 
City's work in the West Entrance Shoes hi ne^St 3HB wilT , ^6rrs : i'St'-«a.f 



,\ 



Specific finishes discussed were:\ 

■* *.-.. , • 

Ceiling - Undetermined. 

Lighting - Undetermined, possibly fluorescent or incandescent. 

Walls - Probably plastic laminate finish. 

Base - Twelve inch high rubber base as used in 

West Entrance Building. 
Floor - Possibly hard rubber - black. 

Services shall include:- 

Electrical - Lighting and controls four power outlets. 

Communication - One telephone outlet. 

HVAC - Heating, cooling and ventilation. 

Plumbing - Fire Sprinklers. 

Security - No specific requirements. Roll down grilleC^jO^rejjuired. 

Mr. Edwards agreed to furnish a floor plan layout of his furnishings 
for coordination within 10 days. 



TEL. (415) 761-0800 



TELEX 509520 
SFO AIRPORT 



Mr. Robin Chiang 

Page 2. 

August 23, 1985 



Mr. Edwards was referred to Peter Bittenbender for details at the 
Boarding Area B Shoeshine Stand. Robin Chiang gave Mr. Edwards a 
brief description of the City's finishes around the Shoeshine Stands 
at Boarding Area B and the West Entrance Building. 



Sincerely, 

Michael Allen 
Project Manager 



MA:pk 



Kent Edwards 

JYuen 

MConrad 

JCostas 

CLTse-Chan 

CHaro 

MAllen 

BPC file (1410H) 







Group 4/Architecture, 
Research and Planning, Inc. 

457 Forbes Boulevard 
South San Francisco 
California 94060 USA 
(415) 871-0709 

451 College Avenue 
Santa Rosa 
California 95401 USA 
(707) 575-7508 



11 September 1985 



Mr. J. Edwards 

Leathercare 

2121 South El Camino Real, Suite 515 

San Mateo, CA 94403 

Re: South Terminal Shoeshine Stand, San Francisco International 
Airport. West Entrance Building @ Boarding Area A Location 

Dear Mr. Edwards: 

Mr. Ed Lanzilla has informed us that your local representative 
has been in the hospital. We wonder if there is anyone 
else in your firm who could help us with the information 
we need for completing contract documents for your shoeshine 
stand. 

As per our meeting of 22. August,' we understand that the 
Airport will provide hi-tech finishes on walls, floor and 
ceiling as well as fixed lighting and electrical outlets. 
We need to know what level and quality of lighting you need 
or whether color rendition or illumination is even that critical 
to your operation. We also need to know where you believe 
most appliances will be located so that we can accomodate 
you with outlets. 

-The Airport is most anxious to have all work done by opening 
day in November. That will require a near miracle, but we 
will try to maintain the schedule if can receive all information 
from your office as soon as possible. Thank you. 



Sincerely, 
Robin Ch 



iang^uA 



copies: Mike Allen, SFIA 

Charles Ham, Group 4 






g::.:::::::::i 

SEP. IT ©35 

lliG u 3US 



f-T.-'J C? rL'.: 

a.«:3c::.:t:.-c 



.3 
.."J 



MORRIS BERNSTEIN 
PRESIDENT 

WILLIAM K. COBLENTZ 
VICE-PRESIDENT 

DR. 2. L. GOOSBY 

J. EDWARD FLEISHELL 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 



AIRPORTS COMMISSION 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 




LOUIS A. TURPEN 
DIRECTOR OF AIRPORTS 



Augus-t, 27, 1985 



Judith Edwards/Richard G. Lee 
Leather Care - SPO 
2121 El Camino Real, Suite 515 
San Mateo, CA 944503 

Re: Airport Shoeshine Bid 

Dear Mrs. Edwards and Mr. Lee: 

On August 21, 1985 at 10:00 A.M. bids were opened for the South Terminal 
Shoeshine Lease. The apparent high bidder is Leather-Care with a bid of 
$96,575 as a minimum annual guarantee. The second high bidder is A Step 
Dp with a bid of $85,276 as a minimum annual guarantee. As A Step Up 
requested preference of local and minority bidder, ten percent (10%) is 
added to the bid. A Step Op effective bid thereby is $93,803. 

However, A Step Op has submitted a formal protest of the shoeshine bid 
submitted by Leather-Care (copy of the protest and Leather- Care's bid 
documents are attached). 

The protest has been submitted to the San Prancisco Human Rights 
Commission for a reply. 

You might want to consult an attorney on this matter. 

Very truly yours, 




Attachment 
EJL:au 



bcc: Admin 
Chron 
Pile 

0358m 

TEL. (4 15) 76 1-0800 



TELEX 509520 
SFO AIRPORT 



'J 





[ 



-2674345 



BANKof AMERICA" 1 

NATIONWIDE SERVICE CENTER 
PLEASANT HILL. CALIFORNIA 



< v CASHIER'S CHECK 
date August 2orwgfr-*w TS^«r^ 



pay to the ORDER *:***** A * ***** ***C ITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO************* 5,000.00 



«■ ee^i^us"* iiiaioooasai: l3 c ^7?»•a5ioo^■ 








IV-A 
BID FORM 

LEASE OP SHOESHINE STAND OPERATION 

IN THE SOOTH TERMINAL BUILDING 

AT 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 

San Prancisco, California 

August 21, 1985 

TO THE DIRECTOR OP AIRPORTS: 

The undersigned, having examined carefully the accompanying Invitation for 
Bids, instructions to Bidders, and the Lease of Shoeshine Stand Operation in 
the South Terminal Building at San Prancisco International Airport, and having 
visited said Airport, and having become familiar with all of the terms and 
conditions specified in said Invitation, Instructions, and in the Lease, and 
with its proposed operation, and having completed answers to all 
Questionnaires hereby submits this bid as and for compensation for the 
privilege of and permission to operate Lease of Shoeshine Stand Operation at 
Airport to be paid to City by the undersigned in consideration of the 
execution of said Lease and the performance of all terms and conditions 
therein agreed by the Lessee on its part to be kept and performed. 

The amount of the first year's annual guarantee is Ninety Six 

Thnnsanrl Fiyp HunHrPri Spypnty Fivp DOLLARS (396,575.00 ), 

which constitutes the Bid Item. As specified in the Instructions to Bidders, 
the minimum acceptable bid is FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($50,000.00) per year, 
adjusted annually by the Consumer Price Index. 



(Sign here, if individual) 

(Sign below, if Co-partnership 
or Joint Venture) 
(Co-partnership name of firm 
or name of joint Venture 

(Address) 
Signature of members signing) 

(Address) 

(Address) 
(Address) 



(Signature), 
(Address) 



I pathPT ParP - 9F0 



c 




V 



(Sign here, if corporation) 
Name of Corporation 
(Address) 



Signature of Officer of Corporation 



Title 
(Corporate seal to be affixed here) 



Dated 



Page 1 of 4 

IV-B 

QUALIFICATION QOESTIONAIRB RE: EXPERIENCE 

AND FINANCIAL ABILITY 

All information requested in the Qualification Questionnaire HOST be furnished 
by the prospective bidder, and MOST be submitted. Statements must be complete 
and accurate and in the form requested. Omission* inaccuracy or misstatement 
may be cause for rejection. 



1. 



Name of prospective bidder exactly as it is to appear on the Lease, 
and address which prospective bidder designates under the Notice 
provision of the Lease: 

I Pathpr Hare - SFO 

7171 9. M Paminn Rpal SrR 515 

San Mateo, CA 94403 



2. 



Prospective Bidder, if selected, intends to carry on the business as 
Individual ( ), Partnership ( ), Joint Venture ( x ), 
Corporation ( ), Other ( ); If "Other" attach explanation. 



3. If a Partnership or Joint Venture, attach a copy of the partnership 
agreement or Joint Venture agreement and answer the following: 
A. Name, address, and share of each partner or member of Joint Venture: 
Name Address Share^ > 

Richard G. Lee 2121 S El Camion RpsI /'a9* 



B. 
C. 
O. 

E. 



Judith Edwards 



55 W. 7uth Avp S. MatPn \. "51 X 



-r 



S 



Date of Organizatio n August 1. 1985 



General or Limited Partnership 
Where Recorded 



( If applicable) 



County 
Registered in California Yes 



State 
If so, When 



<3> 



Date 

August 1. 1985 






JOIHT VENTURE AGREEMENT 

This Agreement is made on this 1st day of August, 1985, by JUDITH 
J. EDWARDS, and RICHARD G. LEE, under the following provisions. 

1 . Joint Venture -Type of Business . The individuals shall associate to form a 
Joint Venture for the purpose of operating shoe shine concessions, and any 
other businesses as agreed upon. 



2. Joint Venture . The Joint Venture name shall (be LEATHER CARE - CALIFORN 



rnj£ V,2£) 



3. Term . The Joint Venture shall commence on the execution of this Agreement, 
and shall continue until dissolved by agreement of the Parties or termina- 
ted under the provisions of this Agreement. 

4. Place of Business . The principal place of business shall be 2121 S. El 
Camino Real, Suite 515, San Mateo, CA. 

5. Initial Capital . The initial capital shall be the sum of Fifteen Thousand 
Dollars ($15,000), contributed in the same percentages as the partners 
shall share in partnership profits and losses as set forth in the eighth 
provision hereof. The initial capital shall be deposited in Western 
Savings and Loan, Sun City West, Arizona. 

6. Capital Withdrawls . No Partner shall withdraw any portion of the capital 
without the other Partners ■ express written consent. 

7. Bank Accounts . All income earned shall be deposited in accounts in the 
name of the Joint Venture at such bank or banks, selected by a majority 
vote of all concerned, located in the county of the State where earned. 



-1- 



jpsaea . The Partners shall share) in profits and shall bear {'" •% 



8. Profits and Los 
lossee equally-' 

9. Books of Account . Joint Venture books of account shall be accurately kept 
and shall include records of all income, expenses, assets and liabilities. 
The books of account shall be maintained on the cash basis. Each Person 
shall have the right to inspect the Joint Venture books at any time. 

10. Calendar Year . The Joint Venture year shall end on December 31st of each 
year. 

11. Accountings . Complete accountings of the affairs at the close of business 
on the last days of each month of each year shall be rendered within 
Fifteen days after the close of each such month. At the time of each 
accounting, the net profits of the Joint Venture may be distributed as 
provided in this Agreement. Except as to errors brought to the attention 
within ten days after it is rendered, each accounting shall be final and 
conclusive. 

12. Management and Authority . '^Each Party shall have an (equal j right in the 
^management of the Joint Venture. Each shall have authority to bind the 

Joint Venture in making contracts and incurring obligations in the Joint 
Venture name or on its credit. No Party, however, shall incur obligations 
in the Joint Venture name or on its credit exceeding Two Thousand Five 
Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00) without the other Parties' express written 
consent. Any obligation incurred in violation of this provision shall be 
charged to and collected from the Party who incurred the obligation. In 
the event there is a disagreement, such agreement shall be presented to 
arbitration as provided for in the fifteenth provision hereof. 



-2- 




13. Salaries . No Party shall be entitled to a salary initially. This pro- 
vision will be reviewed at the end of three months and may be amended by 
consent of all of the individual. Each person shall be entitled to 
reimbursement for necessary expenses incurred for business. 

14. Net Profits Defined . The term "net profits," as used in this Agreement, 
shall mean the net profits as determined by generally accepted accounting 
principles for each accounting period specified in this Agreement. 

15. Arbitration of Disputes . Any controversy or claim arising under this 
Agreement shall be submitted for arbitration under the following rules: 

(1) Unless all Parties can agree on the selection of one Arbitrator, 
JUDITH J. EDWARDS and RICHARD G. LEE shall together be entitled to 
select one Arbitrator. The two Arbitrators selected shall choose one 
additional Arbitrator and these shall make up the Arbitration Panel. 

(2) The Parties shall agree on and stipulate to a settlement of facts and 
issues presented which shall be submitted to the Arbitrator or the 
Arbitration Panel. 

(3) If desired, each Person may submit a written statement of position to 
the Arbitrator or the Arbitration Panel. If a Person chooses to 
submit a statement of position, copies of that statement must be 
served to all other Parties, who shall have the right to submit 
written rebuttals within ten days from receipt. Copies of such 
rebuttals shall be served to all Parties. 

(4) The Arbitrator or the Arbitration Panel may request oral argument at 
which all Persons, or their duly authorized representative or repre- 
sentatives have the right to be present. 

(5) If the Arbitrator or the Arbitration Panel desires, he or it may 



-3- 



submit written questions to the Parties. The Parties shall respond to 
such questions in writing. If a question is addressed to an individ- 
uals, copies of the question and the answer thereto shall be served on 
the other Parties. 

(6) Fees and expenses of the Arbitrator or the Arbitration Panel shall be 
paid by the Partnership as a business expense. 

(7) The decision of and any award from the Arbitrator or the Arbitration 
Panel shall not be binding on the Partners and shall in no way preju- 
dice any rights they may have to pursue all available legal and equit- 
able remedies, except that the Partners may agree beforehand that the 
decisions or awards from the Arbitration Panel, or the Arbitrator if 
there is only one, shall be final. 

16. Withdrawl . Upon thirty (30) days written notice of intent to the other 
Party, any Party may withdraw from the Joint Venture at the end of any 
accounting period specified in this Agreement. 

17. Dissolution . On dissolution the affairs shall be wound up, the assets 
liquidated, its debts paid, and the surplus divided according to their then 
net worths in the business. 

18. Notices . All notices between the Parties shall be in writing and shall be 
deemed served when personally delivered, or when deposited in the United 
States mail certified, first-class postage prepaid, or to such other place 
as may be specified in a notice given pursuant to this Paragraph as the 
address for service of notice. 

19. Consents and Agreements . All consents and agreements provided for or per- 
mitted by this Agreement shall be in writing. Signed copies of all 

-4- 



consents and agreements pertaining to the Joint Venture shall be kept with 
the Joint Venture books. 

20. Goodwill . On all accountings provided for in this Agreement, the goodwill 
of the business shall be valued at one dollar ($1) and no more. 

21. Sole Agreement . This instrument contains the sole agreement relating to 
the Joint Venture. It correctly sets out the rights and obligations. Any- 
prior agreements, promises, negotiations, or representations not expressly 
set forth in this instrument have no force or effect. 

This Agreement is executed on this / tvT day of August, 1985 in San 
Mateo County, California. 




-5- 



Page 2 of 4 



4. If a Corporation* answer the following: 

A. When incorporated 

B. In what state 



c. Authorized to do business in California_ 
If so, as of what date 



D. Name, address, experience in the business and amount of stock held by 
the following officers: 
President 



Vice President 



Secretary, 



Treasurer 



Other 



B. Name, address and shares of stock held by each Member of the Board of 
Directors: 

Chairman 



Member 



Member 



Member 



Member 



Member 



Member 



Page 3 of 4 

P. Name, address and shares of stock held by other principal Stockholders: 
(A Principal Stockholder is defined as a stockholder who holds 10% or 
more of the outstanding stock of the corporation. ) 



Total capitalization $ 

Amount of capital stock subscribed $ 
Amount paid in $ 



5. What is the duration and extent, of your axperienee as the owner or manager 
of a business? include detail as to gross receipts,.;foc each of fcbj^agt V *^ k 
three(3) years. 

(Attach Answer) 

6. Submit a list of persons, firms and/or governmental bodies with whom you 
have arrangements or agreements for the operation of a business. 

(Attach Answer) 

7. Submit a list of locations at which you operate or have operated a 
business. Include all operations of same at airports. 

(Attach Answer) 

8. References: Give names and addresses of at least three non-affiliated 
references: (Reference letters from responsible persons may be submitted.) 

(Attach Answer) 

9. State number of persons employed by you who are engaged in your business. 

(Attach Answer) 



Page 4 of 4 

10. If your are claiming eligibility for a bidder's preference as an MBE/WBE/ 
lbe owned business, attach an exact copy of your contract of formation for 
the City's review and approval, showing the percentage of ownership of the 
minority, women and/or local participants. 

11. Attach personal financial statement. If bidder^s^ajk^dj^ 



personal financial statement (net worth) j if^ bidder .J^J^jJSWpany^aJkfc&ch 
company financial statement. List any and all businesses which involve 
sales in which you have a financial interest; the nature of your interest 
(sole owner, general partner, limited partner, corporate shareholder, 
etc.); your share of each business in percentages; and the gross sales of 
each business for each of the past three (3) years. Shares of 
corporations in which the bidders holdings represent less than It of 
outstanding shares and in which the bidder has no management interest need 
not be declared here. 

FAILURE TO MAKE PULL DISCLOSURE AS REQUIRED ABOVE MAY RESULT IN 
DISQUALIFICATION OP BID OR, IF DISCOVERED AFTER AWARD, IN TERMINATION OF 
LEASE. 



12. The undersigned hereby vouch for the truth and accuracy of all statements, 
answers and representations made in this questionnaire, including all sup- 
plementary statements hereto attached. (Individual, co-partner, joint 
venturer, authorized officer of a corporation) 



VJ.V 1 




Title General Manager 



a/,,. 4~* 



Dated August 20, 1985 



0237m 



Cuestion #5: 



Operation at terminal 2 Phoenix Airport awarded a three year leas, Two 
years of the lease have been completed 

Serveral locations in the Phoenix area such as car washes, shopping 
centers, and office buildings for five years. 

Month to month lease of the South Terminal at the San Francisco In- 
ternation Airport. Lease has been effective since September, 1984. 

Five year lease of the Internation Terminal at the San Francisco In- 
ternational Airport. This lease has been in operation since September, 
1984. 

Operation at the Baton Rouge Airport under a three year lease which 
took effect July, 1985. 



Question #6: 



Shy Harbor International Airport 
San Francisco International Airport 
Baton Rouge Airport 



Question #7: 



Shy Harbor International Airport 

Resort Hotels 

Commercial Office Buildings 

Car Washes 

San Francisco International Airport 

Baton Rouge Airport 



Question #8: 



Wilbert Din 

1376 Vallejo St. 

San Francisco, CA 94109 

(415) 441-2630 

Harold A. Schlotzhauer 

Airports Property Officer 

Sky Harbor International Airport 

Phoenex, AZ 85034 

(602) 273-3300 

Robert E. Emmons 
15421 E. Batavia Dr. 
Aurora, CO 80011 
(303) 343-8455 



Question #9: 

We have a total of ■ 22^pejsons employed as subcontractors in our various^ U \\ 
shoeshine operations. Vj &*£ 



RICHARD G. LEE 
PERSONAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT 
AUGUST 1, 1985 



Assets 



Cash 


$ 3,266 


Securities 


3,625 


Life Insurance (Cash Value) 


6,000 


Real Estate 


160,000 


Automobiles 


6,500 


Assets Of Secretarial Services 


45,000 


Other Personal Assets 


60,000 


Total Assets 


$ 284,391 



Liabilites 

Real Estate Mortgage $ 97,000 

Other Loans 75,000 

Total Liabilites $ 172,000 

Net Worth $ 112,391 

Total Liabilities & Net Worth $ 284,391 



Page 1 of 2 
IV-D 

HRC FORM 5 

Qualification for bid or Rating Preference 

Minority Business Enterprise/ Women Business Enterprise/ and 

Local Business Enterprise (MBE/WBE/LBE) 

Hunan Rights Commission 

Airports commission 

P.O. Box 8097 

San Francisco, California 94128 

Attention: Julie Yia 

(415) 876-2457 

This form must be submitted with the bid or proposal for a business to qualify for bid 
or rating preference as an MBE, WBE, LBE. Exceptions to this form must be approved by 
the Director of the Human Rights Commission. 

Business Name Leather Care - SFO Phon e 574-0707 



Address 2121 S. El Camjno Real Ste 515: San Maten r CA 9A-i(T3 

Principal Service or Produc t Shoeshine Concession 



If already certified by the HRC, please state certification number 

If your company has not received a certification number but has applied for one, please 

indicate here and, if applicable, name the contract, award- ing agency, and date 

of the last contract for which your company had been approved for MBE, WBE, or LBE 

status. 



If your company has not applied for certification or is requesting reconsideration f roir 

a past denial of certification, please complete the remainder of this form. ,- . . ^ . 

Certification Requested : (circle type) MBE WBE LBE \ Mv ) 

Business Structure: (circle type) I Sole proprietor Partnership Corporation 
*lf joint venture, managing partner should complete this form. 
Ownership Information : 

Percent Ethnic 
Name of Owners Ownership Identity Women 



Judith Edwards <j}% , x C\ 

Richard G. Lee L9% A^ian 






Formal Certification will be required upon award of a contract by the City and county 
San Francisco. Falsification of this information by a business selected to perform a 
City and County contract may result in a determination that the bidder is nonresponsiv 
and ineligible for future contract awards. 




Lty/of/perjui 



I swear/under the penalty /of/per jury that the foregoing statements are true and correc 

Titl e General Manager 






Signatun 
Nam e Richard G. Lee"" Dat e August 20, 1985 



Refer to definitions on the following page. 
0237m 



BID RECEIPT LOG 



( 4£ / 



Bid for SOUTH TERMINAL SHOESHITTE LEASE 



Wednesday. August 21, 1$6$ no later than 10:00 a.m. 



Bid Received From 

WaMs (La -S0 



Date 



Time 



Initials 



?'<?£&•' 9! 30 






9 Ml 






Bid 
Amount 






Bid 
Preference 
Claimed 






us>£I*k f l3 2& U 



0527M 



Page 3 of 4 

IV- E 
ATTACHMENT A 

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION QDESTIONNAIRE 

BIDDERS - PLEASE NOTE : The responses to the following questions will have to 
be returned to HRC immediately after the bid opening . A representative of HRC 
will contact the apparent successful bidder after the bid opening at which 
time the apparent successful bidder will be expected to comply with the 
requirements herein and the requirements of the City's Administrative Code, 
Chapters 12B and 12C. Before the award of this bid can be made by the Air- 
ports commission, the apparent successful bidder must be certified by HRC as 
in compliance with the requirements as stated herein. 

QDESTIONNAIRE ON RECRUITMENT, HIRING AND TRAINING PRACTICES (please answer 
all questions, writing responses on a separate sheet of paper and on the 
attached Workforce Breakdown Schedule). 

1. Name and address of Company. 

2. Name, title and telephone number of Company officials at the establishment 
who are responsible for recruitment and hiring and who will provide infor- 
mation concerning this matter. 

3. Name, title and telephone number of senior managing official at the estab- 
lishment, if he/she is not the person in |2. 

4. Describe briefly the basic business activity at the establishment (i.e., 
identify the product supplied or the service performed). 



5. Describe briefly how employees at various levels are hired. 



Cue*. - ,.^ 
itten X.. 1<£ Lt^ 



6. Describe in full affirmative programs in past two years which serve 
increase the number of under-represented minorities* Attach any written X».. ' J**^*' 
programs. 

7. Is this firm a minority business enterprise? Yes x No 



Is this firm a woman-owned business enterprise? Yes x No 



Minority is defined as: Black, Hispanic, Asian (Chinese, Japanese, Pacific 
Islander), Filipino, and American Indian or Alaskan Native. A minority 
business enterprise (MBE) is a business, whether it is a company or a corpora- 
tion, of which at least 51 percent of the interest is owned and controlled by 
one or more minority group members. A woman business enterprise (HBE) is a 
business, whether it is a company or corporation, of which at least 51 percent 
of the interest is owned and controlled by one or more women. 



0237m 



Questionnaire on Recruitment, Hiring and Training Practices 

1. Leather Care - SFO 

2121 S. El Camino Real Ste 515 
San Mateo, CA 94403 

2. Richard G. Lee 
Managing Partner 
(415) 574-0202 

3. See #2 

4. Provide shoeshine services at the San Francisco International Airport 
(South Terminal Building) 

5. Employees are recruited from the general population. 



i 


r 

3 
• 
f 

n 
rr 
m 
n 
■ 


!§ 

— ■ 


?! 

• * 

*~ m 
— a 


— o 
if 

■ 


a? 

52 
•o 

• 

• 


V 1 

a 
■ 

f 

n 
m 


a 

s 


n 

m 
• 

■ 


Siff 

El 

■ 9 
ft 


















c 


M 


















■"•Ui 






















H- 








































t— 




































































































































































































































































- 




















- 


♦ 


a-Ai 












' 







a 



Total 
Hal 




ila 



J 



Am«r. Indian/ 
Alaskan Nativa 

Aaian/Pac. 

Is lands r 

rilipino 



Black 



Hispanie 



Total Minority 
Mala 

Whita 



Total this 
Saction 

Aasr. Indian/ 
Alaskan Nativa 

Aaian/Pac. 
Zslandar 



rilipino 



Black 



Hispanic 



Total Minority 5 
Pamala J 

Mhita 

Total this 
Saction 



WILLIAM J O HOLMES 
PETER K OWENS 



LAW offices or 

William J. O. Holmes 

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 

I5S BOVET ROAO - Suite AOO 

SAN MATEO. CALIFORNIA W4402 

iaiSI S72-ISIS 



September 12, 1985 



HAND DELIVERED 



Mr. Louis A. Turpen 

Director of Airports 

San Francisco International Airport 

San Francisco, Caifornia 94128 

Re: South Terminal Shoe Shine Service Bid 

Dear Mr. Turpen: 

I represent Judith Edwards and Richard G. Lee of Leather Care-SFO who 
were the successful bidders for the South Terminal Shoe Shine Service Bid. I 
am writing this letter on their behalf and in response to the letter of protest 
written by Walter H. Caplan dated August 23, 1985 on behalf of A Step Up, 
who was the protesting bidder. 

In response to the protest filed by A Step Up, I will respond to the 
points of objection raised by the protesting party: 

1. Cashier's Check Submitted as Bid Bond 

jt £js ^pnrrp^ t hat a cashier's check was submi tted by Leather 
Care-SFO, however, they did attempt to obtain a certified check from their 
bank, the Bank of America. The Bank of America informed them that they no 
longer issued certified checks but rather cashier's checks. A cashier's check is 
as good as a certifie d check and this grou nd for appeal should be rejected. 




The name of the bidder is Leather Care-SFO, that is a fictitious 
business name of the Partnership of Leather Care-California. The Fictitious 
Business Name Statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Mateo 
County, California. Accordingly, it is my contention that the bid was properly 
filed in the fictitious business name of Leather Care-SFO. 



3. Apparent Fraud in Partnership Interests 



T here wi 
commission Tbrffl fr" 



intent tp> commit any 



uwnyi'bliip 



fra ud. _^ The human rights 
sharw as~~T>«loi»ging to Judith 



Edwards-51* and Richard G. Lee-49*. The Joint Venture Agreement refers to 
profits and losses being borne equally. The Joint Venture Agreement was 
prepared by Mr. Lee and executed by the parties with the understanding that 
Mrs. Edwards did, in fact, own 51* and Richard Lee 49%, despite the fact that 
the Joint Venture Agreement appears to conflict. The ownership interest in 



Mr. Louis A. Turpen 
September 12, 1985 
Page 2 



the Joint Venture has always been understood by Judith Edwards and Mr. Lee 
to be owned 51% by Mrs. Edwards and 49% by Mr. Lee. 

Leather Care-SFO did seek an affirmative action bidder preference 
bonus for a woman owned entity based upon the parties agreement that Mrs. 
Edwards owned 5136 of the profits of the Joint Venture. The bidders' 
preference bonus was not circled by mistake when the application was 
submitted. It should also be pointed out that in addition to the woman owned 
preference, Mr. Lee, the other joint venturer, is Chinese and would be entitled 
to a bidders' preference bonus. 

4. Incomplete Bid Submittal 

a. C flQ Jf in ancial statements were submitte d for the majority 
Partner, Judith Edwards, due to the fact that Mrs. Edwards has previously filed 
financial statements with the Airport Commission because she is operating 
similar business entities in the International and South Terminal. 

b. v jffi' gro gs, «'« nubmitted" for -the bidding entity for the past 
three years. This particular business entity, Leatner - Care-California, dba 
Leather Care-SFO, is a new business entity with no previous sales. However, 
in response to Question No. 5 relating to experience, these applicants did 
submit prior business experience of Mrs. Edwards, the principal Partner, at the 
Phoenix Airport, the South Terminal at San Francisco International Airport, the 
International Terminal at San Francisco International Airport and at the Baton 
Rouge, Louisiana Airport. 

c. Question 6 of the Affirmative Action Questionnair e was > *?*p__ 
answered due t o the iact that Learner uare-SFU is a new business entity ana 
has not hired any employees other than the two principals. However, Mrs. 
Edwards, the majority owner of the applicant has previously filed Affirmative 
Action Questionnaires with the Airport Commission relating to the successful 
bid for the International Terminal and the month-to-month Lease for the 
existing shoe shine facility at the South Terminal at San Francisco International 
Airport. 

d. There are, in fact, 22 persons employed as subcontractors by 
Mrs. Edwards, the majority Partner. When completing Attachment B of the HRC 
Workforce Breakdown, Mr. Lee understood that only he andJtossdMwMH^would 
have to be listed. The other 22 subcontractors were M>fi L*£roken do\ 
Attachment B by mistake^and a completed - Workforce Breakdown-ot _ Tnose" other' 
22 subcontractors/employees will be submitted to the Human Rights Commission 
at the hearing on September 17, 19 85. 

e. The flpplieotinnCrii^ in^fact. f ail to show whether the Joint- , 
V enture Agreement was recorded . However, it will be recorded in San 
Francisco County prior to the hearing on the 17th. The reason it waafficO 
recorded prior to this time is due to a breakdown in communication between 
the Partners as to who would be responsible for recording same. 



Mr. Louis A. Turpen 
September 12, 1985 
Page 3 



^—— <v f. The HRC Form 5 - Certification Requested. A fT"'n t h ^rs M B - 
aC mistake * \p thp fajlure to circle- |hg» taouest JQE^J/l inority Business Enterprise*""* 
and/or tne woman's business Enterprise by tor. Lee? However, it is clear from 
the application, itself, that Judith Edwards is a woman and Richard G. Lee is 
an Asian and it is clear that this form was submitted in order to request a 
certification. 

In light of the above response, we respectfully request that the protest of 
"A Step Up" be rejected and that Leather Care-SFO be confirmed as the South 
Terminal Shoe Shine tenant. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. 

Thank you. 



Very truly yours, 



WJOH:jeh 

cc: Mr. Edward J. Lanzilla 

Mr. Morris Bernstein 

Mr. William K. Coblentz 

Dr. Z. L. Goosby 

Mr. J. Edward Fleishell 

Ms. Athena Tsougarakis 

Mr. Richard G. Lee 




WILLIAM/D. O. HOLMES 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 
MEMORANDUM 



From the Office of the 
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION 



To: 



From: 



Ms. Angela Gittens 
Deputy Director of Ai 
Business and Financ 



1095 Market Street - #501 
San Francisco 94103 
558-4901 

Date: September 11, 1985 




Grant S. Mickins 
Executive Director 
Human Rights Commission 

Subject: South Terminal Shoe Shine Concession Bid Protest 

We are submitting herewith our response to the bid protest letter from Mr. Walter 
Caplan on behalf of A Step Up. We are, of course, responding only to those allegations 
of noncompliance with the HRC's requirements by Leather Care. 

1. (Point 3 - Apparent Fraud in Partnership Interests.) 

Since the percentages of ownership are clearly defined in the agreement as 




this aspect of its bid 



2. (Point 4.c - Question 6 to the HRC Affirmative Action Questionnaire was 
not answered. ) 

Our record shows Leather Care §FQ s has an approved, affirmative actiojj, 
agreement with the HRC since 1984. The fact that this"ques'tfon"was not 
answered should not be construed as an incomplete bid submittal. 

3. (Point 4.d - Difference in the number of persons employed reported in the 
Questionnaire and the HRC Attachment B form.) 

We believe this is attributed to a^typographicjf ) error. . Again, it should 
not be considered as a deliberate miSDreseTT ldli un in L lre~~bid submittal . 

4. (Point 4.f - Why was Leather Care extended the 5% bid preference?) 

in dicate MBE/WBE preference in the HRC. Form 5, 
n_MBF_and a j^Mn Form IV-E. jSggSSflDT 
Furthermo re, ClTh infirm has been certified by the HRC as a WBE; therefore, 
it is entitled "fo a 5% bid preference credit. 

Based on the foregoing, we find no good cause to disqualify Leather Care's bid 
as not in compliance with the HRC's affirmative action requirements. 



While Leather Car e di( 
r 



GSM:SKL:ltn 

cc: Mr. Louis A Turpen, Director of Airports 

Wr. Don Garibaldi, Office of the City Attorney-Airports 
vMr. Ed Lanzilla, Airports' Property Kgmt. 



- 



J SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




MINUTES 



OCTOBER 1, 1985 



DOC DEF 

DEC 1 8 "1985 



DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

WILLIAM K. COBLENTZ 

Vice-President 

DR. Z.L. GOOSBY 

J. EDWARD FLEISHELL 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 



LOUIS A.TURPEN 

Director of Airports 



San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

October 1 , 1985 



Calendar 
Section 


Agenda 
Item 


Title 


A. 




CALL TO ORDER: 


B. 




ROLL CALL: 


C. 




ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 



Resolution 
Number 



Regular meeting of 
August 6, 1985 

DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

Status Report on 
Valet Parking 

Report on Proposed Pas- 
senger Service Concessions 

ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

Travel Approval for Director 

ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

Authorization to Receive Bids: 
South Terminal Shoe Shine Lease 

Resolution Authorizing a Pre- 
Bid Conference for Financial 
Services Lease 

Intercompany Assignment of Duty 
Free Shop Leases to Duty Free 
Shoppers LAX, Inc. 

Annual Service Payment 
Supplemental Appropriation 

$19,643,813 Supplemental 
Appropriation to Fund 
Approved Capital Projects 

Award of Contract 1410-G: 
Passenger Pi ck-Up Area 
West Entrance Building 
$49,810 



85-0317 



85-0303 

85-0304 

85-0305 

85-0306 
85-0307 

85-0308 
85-0309 



Page 

3 
3 



3-4 

4 



Minutes, October 1, 1985, Page 1 



Calendar Agenda Resolution 

Section Item Title Number Page 

9. Request for Consent to Sale 
of Stock of El son' s of 
California, Inc. to 
W.H. Smith & Son 85-0310 6 

G. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

10. Retirement Resolution for 

Hasan Gumrucku 85-0311 6 

11. Declaration of Emergency: 
Removal of Asbestos - 

Western Airlines Rotunda 85-0312 6 

12. Award of Contract No. 1629: 
Replacement of Safety Rail- 
ings at Water Pol lution 

Control Plant 85-0313 7 

13. Tenant Improvement: Pacific 
Southwest Airlines, Boarding 
Area A Hydrant Fuel System 
Modifications. T-3041 , 

$450,000 85-0314 7 

14. Tenant Improvement: Hertz, 
Avis, Budget, National and 
Dollar, South Terminal Lease- 
hold Improvements - T-3044 85-0315 7 

H. PUBLIC HEARING: 

15. Recommendation to Increase 
Rental Rates for Permitted 
Cargo Space 7-9 

I. CORRESPONDENCE: 9 

K. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED 

SESSION: 9 



Minutes, October 1, 1985, Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

October 1, 1985 



A. CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:00 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



B. ROLL CALL: 



Present: Morris Bernstein 

W11 liam K. Coblentz 
Z. L. Goosby 
Athena Tsougarakis 

Absent J. Edward Fleishell 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The Minutes of the regular meeting of August 6, 1985 were adopted by order 
of the Commission President. 

No. 85-0317 



DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

1. Status Report on Valet Parking 

Report on Valet Operations and results 
of survey questionnaire to users. 

Ms. Angela Gittens, Acting Director of Airports, told the Commission 
that the survey indicated that valet parking patrons would prefer to 
pay a higher rate rather than have the van service eliminated. She 



Minutes, October 1, 1985, Page 3 



said the report shows that the valet service is making money so an 
increase in the fee would not be necessary at this time. She 
recommended keeping the service and reporting back to the Commission 
in six months. 

Commissioner Goosby reminded the Commission that back in April of 
this year the Commission discussed with staff the possibility of 
reducing the rates in the hopes that valet parking patronage would 
increase. He concluded that since the service is making money a 
reduction would not make sense. 



2. Report on Proposed Passenger Service Concessions: 

Pharmacy 
Dental Clinic 
Watch Repair 

Ms. Gittens told the Commission that at this point staff has not 
found any positive experiences for these three services at other 
airports. She said that staff proposed to do a survey targeting 
employees to determine if these services would be feasible. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis agreed that nothing else can be done at this 
point. 

Ms. Gittens added that two of the airports had a dental clinic. The 
Minneapolis Airport medical clinic included a dental clinic; Logan 
Airport's dental clinic was free-standing. She said that both the 
dentist and the Logan Airport administrative staff felt that the 
clinic was somewhat successful but required a long-term lease and 
more space in order to generate enough revenue to keep it going. She 
explained that the clinic currently has 360 square feet which only 
allows for two chairs. She said that the dentist contends that 1,000 
square feet is needed so that additional chairs could be installed. 
Ms. Gittens said that the revenue to Logan Airport was $35 per square 
foot. 

Commissioner Bernstein said he was not sure he agreed. He said that 
15 percent of the departments in a department store do 85 percent of 
the business. He said that even though it would be a lot more 
economical and profitable if the remaining 85 percent of those 
departments were discontinued customer service should be considered 
and a well-rounded operation should be maintained. 

Ms. Gittens said that in talking with SFO's medical clinic administra- 
tion, staff discovered that they had tried a related pharmacy with 
their outside clinic, handling street trade as well as referrals from 
the clinic, but it did not do well. Ms. Gittens said that although 
she agreed it would be a service, staff has not been able to find a 
successful operation at other airports. 

Commissioner Bernstein said that he was talking philosophy and 
service to the public whereas staff was concerned about where the 
Airport could make the most money. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis felt that staff was taking the appropriate 
action by conducting a passenger/staff survey to determine the recep- 
tiveness of the idea. 



Minutes, October 1, 1985, Page 4 



ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

The following item, introduced by Commissioner Goosby, was unanimously 
adopted. 

Commissioner Goosby introduced a resolution approving the Director's 
attendance at the Canadian Air Transportation Administration - Pacific 
Region Manager's meeting on October 9, 1985 in British Colombia. 

No. 85-0303 



Commissioner Bernstein asked staff to explain a comment made in a new 
Airport brochure instructing deaf individuals to go to white courtesy 
phones for instructions on which phones they can access the TDD system. 

Ms. Gittens suggested that the statement in the pamphlet meant that the 
instructions for accessing the TTY were on a card on the white courtesy 
phones. 

Ms. Gittens said that staff will prepare a report on how this system works 



F. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

The following item was unanimously adopted. 

3. Authorization to Receive Bids: 
South Terminal Shoe Shine Lease 

No. 85-0304 

Ms. Gittens said that at the last Commission meeting a suggestion was 
made to require that staff be employees and not independent 
contractors. She said that all bidders and current operators were 
contacted and staff found that they all operate with independent 
contractors. Ms. Gittens recommended not making that amendment to 
the specifications. 



Commissioner Tsougarakis was excused from voting on the following item by 
the unanimous consent of the Commission. The item was unanimously adopted. 

4. Resolution Authorizing a Pre-Bid Conference for Financial Services 
Lease 

No. 85-0305 



The following items were unanimously adopted. 

5. Intercompany Assignment of Duty Free Shop Leases to Duty Free 
Shoppers LAX, Inc. 

No. 85-0306 Resolution consenting to intercompany 

assignment of all leases, subleases, 
and permits from Duty Free Shoppers 
N.V. to Duty Free Shoppers LAX, Inc. 



Minutes, October 1, 1985, Page 5 



6. Annual Service Payment Supplemental Appropriation 

No. 85-0307 Resolution authorizing the Director to 

request a supplemental appropriation 
of $822,588.00 to increase the 
Airport's annual service payment for 
FY 84/85 to a total of $7,422,588.00. 



7. $19,643,813 Supplemental Appropriation to Fund Approved Capital 
Projects 

No. 85-0308 



Award of Contract 1410-G: 

Passenger Pick-Up Area West Entrance Building - $49,810 

No. 85-0309 Resolution awarding Contract 1410-G 

Passenger Pick-Up Area, West Entrance 
Building to Hodgson Construction, Inc. 
in the amount of $49,810.00. 



9. Request for Consent to Sale of Stock of El son's of California, Inc. 
to W. H. Smith & Son 

No. 85-0310 



G. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

The following items were unanimously adopted. 

10. Retirement Resolution for Hasan Gumrucku 

No. 85-0311 Hasan Gumrucku has served the City and 

County of San Francisco for 
twenty-three years with the last 
eleven on the Airport staff as 
Construction Inspector. 



11. Declaration of Emergency: 

Removal of Basbestos - Western Airlines Rotunda 

No. 85-0312 Declaration of emergency to remove 

asbestos on pipes, ducts, and metal 
decking in the attic space of the 
Western Airlines Rotunda. Work is to 
be done immediately to provide a safe 
work area for contractors renovating 
the building. $65,000.00. 



Minutes, October 1, 1985, Page 6 



12. Award of Contract No. 1629: 

Replacement of Safety Railings at Water Pollution Control Plant 

No. 85-0313 Resolution awarding Contract No. 1629 

to Siedl Steel Fabricator in the 
amount of $54,975.00. 

Two bids were received on September 5, 
1985, ranging from $54,975.00 to 
$58,650.00. 



13. Tenant Improvement: 

Pacific Southwest Airlines 

Boarding Area A Hydrant Fuel System Modifications 

T-3041 - $450,000.00 

No. 85-0314 Resolution approving the plans and 

specifications and authorizing 
construction. No cost to the Airport. 



14. Tenant Improvement: 

Hertz, Avis, Budget, National and Dollar 

South Terminal, Leasehold Improvements - T-3044 

No. 85-0315 Construction of rental car companies' 

ticket counters and the installation 
of equipment, $80,000. No cost to 
Airport. 



H. PUBLIC HEARING: 

The Public Hearing on the following item began at 9:14 a.m. and ended at 
9:25 a.m. There was no public testimony for this item. 

15. Resolution Recommending an Increase in Rental Rates for Permitted 
Cargo Space 

Hearing to recommend an increase in 
rental rates for cargo handling space 
rented to airlines under permits. 

Ms. Gittens explained that the last increase was in March, 1984. The 
rates are being realigned as staff is trying to return to leasing 
cargo space rather than continue with permits. 

Commissioner Goosby said it was his understanding that Western 
Airlines wants to give up a hangar and asked what that space would be 
used for. 

Ms. Gittens responded that staff is anticipating cargo useage for 
that space. She said there are several interested parties and a 
proposal will be presented to the Commission within the next month. 

Ms. Gittens said that the entire Airport community will be notified 
that a certain amount of cargo space is available and that they can 
use any qualified handler. She explained that there has been an 

Minutes, October 1, 1985, Page 7 



allegation that one of the current handlers has been indicating that 
they are the Airport's handler. She disclaimed that notion. 



Commissioner Bernstein said it was his understanding that the Bufano 
sculptures have been removed. 

Ms. Gittens responded that that was her understanding as well. 

Commissioner Bernstein felt that the sculptures were a fine addition 
to the appearance of the Airport. 

Ms. Gittens added that they were a favorite among staff. 



Commissioner Goosby, referring back to the rate increase, felt that 
it was a fair increase. 

Commissioner Goosby said that he understood there was a real need for 
cargo space and facilities for cargo handlers in order to service the 
airlines properly. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if that space could be used for 
additional airline gates. 

Ms. Gittens did not feel that this area would be appropriate for 
passenger services. She said that John Costas of the Bureau of 
Planning and Construction was present to answer further questions. 

Mr. Costas explained that in order to convert the cargo area over for 
passenger use we would have to set up a parking area, renovate the 
building to accommodate hold rooms for passengers and attach loading 
bridges. He said that although it could be done it would take a 
substantial amount of time and money. 

Commissioner Coblentz asked why we would need an extra passenger area. 

Commissioner Bernstein responded that there are several airlines that 
want to operate out of SFO and cannot find the space. 

Commissioner Coblentz felt that every effort should be made to locate 
space for those airlines elsewhere on the Airport before millions of 
dollars are spent. He said that there are some gates that are not 
being used. 

Mr. Costas added that utilization of many of the gates in the 
terminal complex are still low for some airlines like TWA and 
Western. He said that the Airport is implementing a policy to force 
TWA, Western and other airlines to accommodate the new entrants. He 
said that World Airways should be accommodated within the next week 
or two; Peoples Express is still being worked on. 

Ms. Gittens said that Peoples Express has been shown some space and 
informed staff that they would get back to them. 

Commissioner Coblentz felt that placing airlines outside of the 
terminal complex area would be like making them second class 
citizens. He added that other facilities would have to be provided 
so the Airport would not only be faced with the capital improvements 
but the facilities management that goes with it. He felt that unless 
there was a real growing need and could be capitalized by those 
tenants he would be very much opposed to it. 



Minutes, October 1, 1985, Page 8 



Mr. Costas agreed with Commissioner Coblentz that there would not be 
enough support facilities in the area of the Western cargo facility 
to make it work, i.e. transportation to and from interline carriers, 
etc. He said it would be a monumental undertaking. 

Commissioner Coblentz said that LaGuardia Airport had this sort of a 
situation for a while but it was solely for the Eastern shuttle. 

Commissioner Bernstein said that he understood that while adjust- 
ments, repairs, alterations and growth costs money, tenants will be 
paying rent and the public will be accommodated. 

Commissioner Coblentz felt that the unanimous opinion of the 
Commission has always been that any airline wanting access to SFO 
should have it, and, that all facilities should be utilized so that 
no airline would feel like a second class citizen. 

Mr. Costas said that that policy is being carried out as well as 
possible by staff. 

Ms. Gittens told the Commission that the Airport has had about six 
new passenger entrants in the last year and a half. 

Commissioner Goosby added that a substantial amount of money can be 
made from cargo space and handling. 



I. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission, 



K. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 9:25 A.M. to go into closed session. 

/ 

Je/an Caramatti 
Commission Secretary 



Minutes, October 1, 1985, Page 9 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 



MINUTES 



OCTOBER 15, 1985 



DOCUMENTS 

JAN 7 1 ^ 

SAn) Fft>i»WiowO 

PUBLIC LIBRARY 



DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

WILLIAM K. COBLENTZ 

Vice-President 

DR. Z.L. GOOSBY 

J. EDWARD FLEISHELL 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 

LOUIS A.TURPEN 

Director of Airports 

San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

October 15, 1985 



Calendar 
Section 


Agenda 
Item 


Title 


A. 




CALL TO ORDER: 


B. 




ROLL CALL: 


C. 




ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

Regular meetings of 
September 17, 1985 and 
October 1, 1985 



Resolution 
Number 



D. 
E. 



F. 
G. 



ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 

DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

Report on SFO Shuttle Bus 
Operations, Fiscal Year' 
1984-1985 

Status Report on the 

San Francisco Garter Snake 

Study 

ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

Authorization to Receive Bids 
for South Terminal Cigarette 
Vending Lease 

Modification #4 to the 
Bond Trustee Agreement 

Conceptual Approval for 
United Airl ines' Proposal 
of Loading Bridge Modifica- 
tion at Gates 73 and 75, 
North Terminal 

Award of Contract 1009: 
Demol i tion of Pier e 



85-0318 
85-0319 



85-0320 
85-0321 

85-0322 
85-0323 



Page 

3 
3 



4-7 

7 



■10 



Minutes, October 15, 1985, Page 1 



Calendar Agenda Resolution 

Section Item Title Number Page 

7. Bid Call - Airport Contract 
No. 1677: Demol i tlon of 
Interior Finishes, 4th Floor, 

International Terminal 85-0324 10 

H. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

8. Proposed Exhibition Schedule 

for Calendar Year 1986 85-0325 10 

9. Tenant Improvement: Japan 
Airlines, International Term- 
inal-Installation of Computer- 
ized Passenger Check-In 

System 85-0326 11 

10. Award of Airport Contract 
No. 1610: Painting of Metal 

Building Roofs, North Field 85-0327 11 

11. Airport Contract No. 1154: 
Relocation of Field Light- 
ing Controls to New Control 
Tower, Modification No. 1 

(Type II) 85-0328 11 

I. PUBLIC HEARING: 

12. Hearing on the Proposed Re- 
visions to the Public Parking 
Rate Increase Scheduled to 

Take Effect January 1, 1986 11-12 

J. CORRESPONDENCE: 12 

K. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED 

SESSION: 12 



Minutes, October 15, 1985, Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

October 15, 1985 



CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:00 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



B. ROLL CALL: 

Present 

Absent: 



Morris Bernstein 
Will iam K. Coblentz 
0*. Edward Fleishell 
Athena Tsougarakis 

Z. L. Goosby 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The Minutes of the following regular meetings were adopted by order of the 
Commission President. 



No. 85-0318 
No. 85-0319 



September 17, 1985 
October 1, 1985 



D. ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 



In accordance with Section 54957.1 of 
the Brown Act, Jean Caramatti, 
Commission Secretary, announced 
unanimous adoption of Resolution 
No. 85-0316 regarding the settlement 
of small claims noise litigation at 
the closed session of October 1, 1985. 



E. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

1. Report on SF0 Shuttle Bus Operations, Fiscal Year 1984-1985. 

Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director, told the Commission that this was 
the annual report on the SF0 Shuttle Bus operation and was 
self-explanatory. 



Minutes, October 15, 1985, Page 3 



2. Status Report on the San Francisco Garter Snake Study 

Quarterly report onthe San Francisco 
Garter Snake Study in Airport's West 
of Bayshore property. 

Mr. Turpen said that the objective of the study is to determine 
mitigation measures. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked what the significance was of 
recaptured snakes. 

Mr. Turpen responded that it was his understanding that the recapture 
rate has to do with establishing the population. 

Mr. Turpen reminded the Commission that they authorized an extension 
which ends December 31, 1985. He said that at that time the study 
will be concluded and the City will then be in a position to discuss 
mitigation measures. He reminded the Commission that this environ- 
mental study was necessary before anything could be done with the 
West of Bayshore property. He explained that time has been saved by 
accelerating the study and making it coincident with the development 
of the interchange. He added that the snake study would hopefully be 
concluded by the end of this year, and the Commission will be 
provided with a detailed analysis of the findings at that time. 



F. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

There were no items initiated by Commissioners 



G. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

The following item was unanimously adopted as amended. 

3. Authorization to Receive Bids for South Terminal Cigarette Vending 
Lease 

No. 85-0320 

Mr. Turpen explained that now that a portion of the South Terminal 
has been completed this concession is being bid. He said that the 
only concern raised by potential bidders who attended the pre-bid 
conference was that it would be difficult to coordinate the 
collection of money with Airport staff. He explained that the 
specifications state that a member of Airport staff must be present 
when money is collected. 

Mr. Henry Ford, Henry Ford Enterprises, Inc., said that his machines 
were set on a computer system and a service cycle. He said that 
when money is removed from the machine it will be taken to an Airport 
office and counted, then handed over to the concession employee who 
will transport it to the concessionaire's office and counted again. 
He said that he was not opposing the system but argued that it was 
time consuming. He suggested that there might be another way to 
track the total sales against the total dollars collected. 



Minutes, October 15, 1985, Page 4 



Mr. Ford also felt that the proposed rental of 10 percent or $10,000, 
whichever is greater, was too high. He said that last year he only 
collected $17,000; the rental fee was $1,700 (10 percent). He said 
that the concession in the North Terminal collected $15,000 last year 
and paid $5,000 in rental fees. He felt that trying to meet a 
$10,000 rental on $17,000 would be difficult but felt that 10 percent 
or a slightly higher percentage could be met. He also argued that 
all the machines would not be in place until the South Terminal is 
completed in three years. 

Mr. Ford asked the Commission to reconsider the 10 percent and reduce 
the $10,000 rental fee. 

Ms. Angela Gittens, Deputy Director for Business and Finance, in 
response to Mr. Ford's comments on the collection procedure, said 
that the procedure was amended to include the requirement that the 
concessionaire submit an advance collection schedule. She said that 
staff will determine at which collections an Airport representative 
will be present. She said staff would like to establish a revenue 
pattern for the first month and thereafter accompany the collections 
on a periodic basis. She agreed that accompanying the collection 
each time would be time consuming for the operator. 

Regarding the issue of rent and the machines, Ms. Gittens responded 
that the South Terminal is projected to have twice as many passengers 
at the end of the program than it currently has. She explained that 
the rent will be prorated according to the number of machines in 
operation. Ms. Gittens did not think that this was clear in the 
previous version of the lease but felt that it has been clarified in 
this version. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked what the point was in monitoring the 
collection on an occasional basis; staff will have no basis for 
comparison. 

Ms. Gittens responded that staff will establish a pattern by 
accompanying each collection for a period of time. She explained 
that this was discussed with the City's internal audit staff and they 
recommended auditing the company's internal audit controls and a 
periodic observation of the cash count after a pattern has been 
established. 

Commissioner Fleishell responded that the company's internal controls 
wi 1 1 not di sclose theft. 

Ms. Gittens clarified that staff would be looking for theft from the 
company by the driver. She said that staff presence at the cash 
collection would indicate theft by the company itself or conspiracy 
of theft between the company and the driver. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if it was true that the rentals in the 
North Terminal were as high as 60 percent. 

Ms. Gittens responded that if you took a $10,000 minimum payment 
against their total collections it would be higher than 10 percent. 
She explained that in the North Terminal the cigarette machines are 
part of the ABC vending lease and are subject to 25 percent rental. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked how much business the concession will do 
in the South Terminal . 

Ms. Gittens responded that although it is an estimate it is 
anticipated that the concession will bring in about $50,000 once the 
terminal is complete. 



Minutes, October 15, 1985, Page 5 



Commissioner Bernstein said that when levels are set a conclusion is 
made as to how much a concession will do. He explained that if 
revenue is anticipated at $50,000 and the profit margin is 40 
percent, you cannot charge a 40 percent rental. 

Ms. Gittens said that it was her understanding that Mr. Ford's 
concern was not with the percentage but with the minimum rent for the 
bid. She explained that Mr. Ford was arguing that there would not be 
enough gross receipts to justify a $10,000 annual rental even after 
the terminal is complete. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked Mr. Ford how much business he thought he 
would do. 

Mr. Ford responded that since there are several other concessions 
selling cigarettes, some at a cheaper price, he thought the maximum 
amount was about $20,000 to $25,000. 

Mr. Ford reminded the Commission that the South Terminal has not yet 
been completed and their vending machines have been moved from 
location to location in order to accommodate the renovation. He said 
that the renovation will be completed in three years so it will take 
that long to install the sixth or seventh vending machine. He added 
that he will have only five or six months of revenue on those parti- 
cular machines. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked what the gross mark-up was on cigarettes. 

Mr. Ford responded that cigarettes are selling for lit a pack; 

Airport concessionaires are allowed to sell them for $1.50, for a 

mark-up of almost 70 percent. He said that his company sold 
cigarettes for $1 .25. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said it was her understanding that the 
rental was pro-rated on the basis of when machines are installed. 

Mr. Ford clarified that it would be pro-rated on $10,000 and not 10 

percent. He said he hoped that sales in the South Terminal for the 

coming year would be about $25,000, keeping in mind that the terminal 
is not complete. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked how the current number of passengers 
in the South Terminal compared with the number of passengers in the 
North Terminal . 

Ms. Gittens responded that about 3 . 7-mi 1 1 i on passengers currently use 
the South Terminal as opposed to about 12-million in the North 
Terminal. When the South Terminal is complete it will accommodate 
about 7.5-million passengers. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked Mr. Ford what his revenue projections 
for the next year were for the South Terminal. 

Mr. Ford responded that they were projecting around $25,000 for next 
year at the current mark-up of 50-70 percent. 

Commissioner Fleishell felt that the bid should go out with the 
requirement that staff be present when money is collected. That 
requirement can be waived in the future if staff feels it is 
appropriate to do so and, with the knowledge of the Commission. 

Commissioner Fleishell said he would be inclined to have a high 
minimum if the cash count was not going to be carefully checked. 



Minutes, October 15, 1985, Page 6 



Mr. Ford said that his company has internal audits and a par level of 
cigarettes is maintained. He explained that if certain brands are 
not in the machines when checked it is possible that the drivers are 
buying the cigarettes to sell themselves. He told the Commission 
that the drivers simply transport the money; the cashiers count it. 
Mr. Ford said that if his company is awarded the lease they will set 
up a collection cycle and present it to the Airport. He said that he 
would also provide staff with a service cycle and explained that 
money is not collected from the machines every time they are serviced. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked if other bidders raised the concern of 
$10,000 being too high. 

Ms. Gittens responded that no one else raised the concern. She added 
that she did not feel that anyone else had Mr. Ford's experience. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if there was any way to justify the 
figures and determine how much business is done per machine or per 
passenger. 

Ms. Gittens said she would provide those figures. 

Mr. Turpen explained that the minimum amount will be the bid item; 
bidders will not be bidding a percentage. He said that the $10,000 
figure could be lowered; the bidder could still bid the minimum or 
any amount over the minimum. 

Commissioner Fleishell suggested lowering the amount to $8,000. 

Mr. Turpen said the Commission can either lower the amount to $8,000 
or ask staff to take a look at it and return to the Commission with a 
recommendation. 

Ms. Gittens preferred to settle the question now so that staff can 
move ahead. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked Ms. Gittens if she could live with the 
$8,000 minimum. 

Ms. Gittens responded that she could. 

There were no objections by the Commission to the $8,000 minimum. 
The specifications were amended to require staff to be present at the 
collection of the money and to waive that requirement at a later date 
with the knowledge of the Commission. 



Commissioner Tsougarakis was excused from voting on item 4. This item was 
unanimously approved. 

4. Modification #4 to the Bond Trustee Agreement 

No. 85-0321 Resolution authorizing fee schedule 

changes to the Bond Trustee Agreement 
with the Bank of America. 

Commissioner Coblentz asked how this fee schedule compared with other 
banks. 

Ms. Gittens responded that the fee schedule was similar. 



Minutes, October 15, 1985, Page 7 



The following items were unanimously adopted. 

5. Conceptual Approval for United Airlines' Proposal of Loading Bridge 
Modification at Gates 73 and 75, North Terminal 

No. 85-0322 Resolution approving the concept of 

United Airlines' proposal of modifying 
the loading bridges at Gates 73 and 
75, North Terminal . 

Mr. Turpen explained that this item involves a modification to United 
Airlines' passenger loading bridges in the North Terminal. He said 
that a preliminary review indicates that this modification would 
allow United Airlines additional space to position aircraft. He 
recommended the Commission's approval of the concept. He said that 
if staff's subsequent review finds that this proposal does not limit 
itself to the ramp area the Commission will be advised. 



Award of Contract 1009: 
Demol i tion of Pier 3 

No. 85-0323 Award of Contract 1009, Demolition of 

Pier e to Ferma Corporation in the 
total amount of $439,000. Construct- 
ion budget for this work is $450,000. 

Commissioner Tsougaraki s asked for a clarification on why the Human 
Rights Commission would not certify the lowest bidder. 

Mr. John Costas, Bureau of Planning and Construction, responded that 
the bidders were required to fill out the necessary HRC forms 
committing to goals established for the contract. He explained that 
Randazzo Enterprises filled out all the forms but on the one form for 
commitment Randazzo indicated they would have no commitment to 
minority goals or participation and signed the form. 



(Discussion on this item was re-opened at the end of the Public 
Hearing and appears below.) 

Mr. Philip Cogbill of Randazzo Enterprises apologized for being late 
and asked for the opportunity to address the Commission on Item 6. 

Commissioner Coblentz told Mr. Cogbill that Item 6 had already been 
approved by the Commission and the contract was awarded to Ferma 
Corporation. He told Mr. Cogbill that he could petition for 
reconsideration. 

Commissioner Coblentz said it was his understanding that Randazzo was 
disqualified by the Human Rights Commission because they would not 
commit to any of the MBE/WBE goals. 

Mr. Cogbill responded that that was not completely accurate. He said 
that Randazzo agreed to comply with all the regulations as stipulated 
by HRC. They filled out the form and later met with HRC, indicating 
that they would meet all the requirements. Mr. Cogbill felt that the 
Human Rights Commission had made up their minds not to qualify 
Randazzo before the meeting. He appealed to the Commission to accept 
their bid. 



Minutes, October 15, 1985, Page 8 



Commissioner Coblentz interrupted Mr. Cogbill and told him that the 
Commission could not overturn a decision by the Human Rights 
Commission. He said that the City and County of San Francisco 
requires that attempts must be made to meet certain MBE/WBE goals. 
Commissioner Coblentz said that the Commission has been advised that 
Mr. Cogbill 's company was unwilling to fill in that particular 
provision. 

Mr. Cogbill said that that was not true. His company is willing to 
fill that section in and agreed to do so in writing. Mr. Cogbill 
said he presented the form to HRC representatives. 

Mr. Clemente Obregon, Contract Compliance Officer for the Human 
Rights Commission, showed the Commission HRC form-3 that Randazzo 
filled out. He said that the section in question was filled in with 
the word "None." 

The Commission looked at the form. 

Mr. Cogbill said that the form asks that all subcontractors and 
suppliers that will be used for this job be listed. He explained 
that the subcontractors were listed on another sheet. He further 
explained that "None" referred to the fact that none of the sub- 
contractors Randazzo intended to use were minority businesses. Mr. 
Cogbill felt that the term "subcontractor" was the source of the 
problem. He explained that his company understood the provision of 
the contract and intended to hire minority businesses by the hour 
rather than by subcontract in order to meet the HRC require- ment. 
He said this was presented to the HRC and they did not accept it, 
explaining that it did not meet HRC requirements. Mr. Cogbill said 
it was always Randazzo' s intention to fulfill the contract. He 
reminded the Commission that the next lower bid would cost the City 
an additional $80,000. 

Commissioner Bernstein clarified that the Commission did not want to 
spend more money than it had to, however, the Airport is bound by the 
laws of the City and must meet its MBE/WBE goals. 

Mr. Cogbill argued that his company agreed to do that in signing 
affadavit no. 1. He said his company wants to cooperate with the 
City, is capable of doing the job, and is licensed by the State of 
Cal ifornia. 

Commissioner Coblentz agreed that HRC form-3 should be clarified. He 
said that he, too, would be confused. 

Mr. Costas remarked that there were four other bidders who were very 
clear on how to bid. They submitted bids with subcontractors who 
would do the work (not on a time and material basis) and would meet 
the goals of this bid. He explained that the other issue is that a 
bidder cannot qualify a bid after it is submitted. He said that the 
forms must be submitted and approved by HRC and doing anything to the 
bid after the fact would be qualifying. 

Commissioner Coblentz said he understood Mr. Cogbill's position but 
the Commission must accept HRC's recommendation. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that the fact that other bidders were 
able to understand the form is not important. He said that there are 
a certain number of wise bidders who frequently bid on City contracts 
and receive the majority of the work in the City and County of San 
Francisco, sometimes to the detriment of the City. He said that the 
object of the Commission is to award contracts to new bidders. He 
agreed that the HRC document was not clear and argued that if a 
bidder made a mistake he does not have the opportunity to correct it. 



Minutes, October 15, 1985, Page 9 



Mr. Obregon said he had no objection to clarifying the form so that 
in the future there will be no misunderstandings but argued that the 
form specifically states the bidder must list his minority subcon- 
tractors on HRC form-3. Once the documentation has been submitted no 
modifications can be made. 

Mr. Turpen said that the Commission will retain their previous action 
and award the contract to the second low bidder. 



7. Bid Call: Airport Contract No. 1677 
Demolition of Interior Finishes, 
4th Floor, International Terminal 

No. 85-0324 Resolution approving the scope, budget 

and schedule for Contract No. 1677, 
and authorizing the Director of 
Airports to call for bids when ready. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked what the space will be used for. 

Mr. Turpen responded that one possibility would be a health club, or 
it could be used for airline space, if necessary. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked if the electrical work that is already 
in place could not be saved in the event it is necessary in the 
future. 

Mr. Dennis Bouey, Deputy Director for Facilities, Operations and 
Maintenance, responded that this area at one time housed the 
International Room. He said that there has since been renovation 
around the area, above it and below it. Most of the wires have 
already been cut, conduits have been broken, and mechanical systems 
could no longer be hooked to any other system. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked Ms. Gittens if the health club would be 
along the same lines as the one in Los Angeles where a passenger 
could rent a room. 

Ms. Gittens responded that that was not a health club but a 
hotel-by-the-hour facility where a passenger with a lay-over of 
several hours could rent a room on an hourly basis. 

Mr. Turpen remarked that this concept was first presented to the 
Commission several months ago. This facility would offer exercise 
equipment and shower facilities. 

Ms. Gittens added that it would be like the Dallas model. 

Mr. Turpen said that the space could go for airline use, such as new 
carriers coming in wanting VIP space or commercial space. 



H. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 
The following items were unanimously adopted. 
8. Proposed Exhibition Schedule for Calendar Year 1986 
No. 85-0325 

Minutes, October 15, 1985. Page 10 



9. Tenant Improvement: 

Japan Airlines, International Terminal - 

Installation of Computerized Passenger Check-In System 

No. 85-0326 Resolution approving preliminary 

plans. T-3040 - $65,000. No rental 
credit. 



10. Award of Airport Contract No. 1610: 

Painting of Metal Building Roofs, North Field 

No. 85-0327 Resolution awarding Contract 1610 to 

Western Roofing Service inthe amount 
of $37,966. Five bids were received 
on August 19, 1985 ranging from 
$37,966 to $56,210. 



11. Airport Contract No. 1154: 

Relocation of Field Lighting Controls to New Control Tower 
Modification No. 1 (Type II) 

No. 85-0328 Resolution approving Modification No. 

1, a Type II Modification, containing 
agreement for payment in the total 
amount of $19,000; authorizing the 
Director of Airports to execute said 
agreement; approving the extension of 
time and assessment of liquidated 
damages in the total amount of $1,000 
for avoidable delays. 



I. PUBLIC HEARING: 

The Public Hearing was called to order at 9:30 AM and closed at 9:33 AM. 

12. Hearing on the Proposed Revisions to the Public Parking Rate Increase 
Scheduled to Take Effect January 1, 1986 

The Commission approved an earlier 
resolution to increase public parking 
rates effective January 1, 1986. 
Staff's proposal would limit this rate 
increase to (1) rates in the first two 
hours in the garage, and, (2) the 
24-hour rate in Lot D. 

Mr. Turpen told the Commission that in June of 1984 they approved 
rate increases effective August, 1984 and January 1, 1986. He said 
that staff recommends that the previously authorized rates be 
modified. Originally, staff anticipated charging up to $15.00 for a 
24-hour period in the garage; staff now indicates that it should be 
maintained at $12.00. There will be an increase in the first and 
second hour rate; the first hour rate will be increased from 75£ to 
$1.00; the second hour will be increased from $1.50 to $2.00. The 
long term lot will increase from $6.00 to $7.00 instead of the $7.50 
that was previously authorized. 



Minutes, October 15, 1985, Page 11 



Mr. Turpen said that Lot D experienced 18 closures in the last year; 

the long term lot has also experienced closures. He suggested that 

the cost increase might encourage some individuals to take advantage 
of public transportation. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked why the increase was necessary. 

Mr. Turpen explained that in the Lease and Use Agreement with the 
airlines we established a series of cost centers. Those cost centers 
were to be self-sufficient. The ground-side cost center has 
experienced a deficit of about $500,000 in the last 12-months. He 
said that this adjustment will cause the ground-side to break even, 
be self-sufficient and not require a subsidy from the air-side. 

There being no public testimony the hearing was closed at 9:30 AM. 



J. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission, 



ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 



There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 9:45 A.M. to go into closed session. 





an Caramatti 

ission Secretary 



Minutes, October 15, 1985, Page 12 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




MINUTES 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

MAR % 8 1986 

•AN FRANCISCO 

PltBI IC I IRD4DV 



NOVEMBER 19, 1985 



DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

J. EDWARD FLEISHELL 

Vice-President 

DR. Z.L. GOOSBY 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 



LOUIS A.TURPEIM 

Director of Airports 



San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



' 







Index 










of the Minutes 










Airports Commission 










November 19, 1985 






Calendar 


Agenda 




Resolution 




Section 


Item 


Title 


Number 


Page 


A. 




CALL TO ORDER: 




4 


B. 




ROLL CALL: 




4 


C 




ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 







Regular meeting of 

October 15, 1985 85-0330 



ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 



DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

Report on Unregulated 
Smarte Carte Collectors 

Progress Report on the 1-380 
Highway Construction Program 

United Airlines Proposed 
International Operations at 
SFO - Verbal Report 

Proposed Dental Clinic, 
Pharmacy and Watch Repair 
Concessions - Verbal Report 

Report on the Metropolitan 
Transportation Commission's 
Proposed Joint Powers Agree- 
ment 



ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 



ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

Resolution Awarding Site 

Lease, Plot 50A 85-0331 



4 
4 

4-5 
5 

6-10 

10 

11 
11 



20-26 



Award of South Terminal 
Shoe Shine Lease 



85-0332 



11-15 



8. Authorization to Award 
Leases of Mobile Catering 
in the Taxi Staging Area of 

the Garage 85-0333 15 

9. Resolution Requesting Authori- 
zation to Award South Terminal 

Cigarette Vending Lease 85-0334 15 

10. Proposed Revisions to the 
Public Parking Rate Increase 
Scheduled to take Effect 

January 1, 1986 85-0335 16 

11. Authorization Approving 
Schematic Design for AT&T 
International Calling 

Center 85-0336 16 

12. Modification to Bond Counsel 
Agreement with Orrick, 
Herrington & Sutcliffe - 

$15,000.00 85-0337 16-17 

13. Modification No. 3 - Noise 
Monitoring System Expansion, 

Phase IV - Tracor, Inc. 85-0338 17 

14. Award of Airport Contract 
No. 824 - Taxiway Centerline 

Lighting 85-0339 18 

15. Award of Airport Contract 
No. 1573R - Concrete Divider 
Barrier for Cart Road, Boarding 

Area 'D' 85-0340 18 

16. Award of Airport Contract 
No. 101 1A - Renconstruct 
Taxiway 'C to Plot 50A, 

Phase I 85-0341 18 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

17. Type II Modifications for 

Three South Terminal Complex 

Construction Contracts 85-0342 18 

85-0343 
85-0344 



18. Tenant Improvement: 
Western Airlines Boarding 
Area 'B' - Leasehold Improve- 
ments - (T-3055) 85-0345 18 

19. Tenant Improvement: 
Eastern Airlines Cargo Plot 

7S Loading Dock - T-30008 85-0346 19 



Minutes, November 19, 1985, Page 2 



20. Tenant Improvement: 
Philippine Airlines Cargo 
Facility Modification - 

T-3052 85-0347 19 

21. Statistical Adjustment for 
1985-86 Joint Use Billings 
under Lease and Use Agree- 
ment - World Airways 85-0348 19 

22. Statistical Adjustment for 
1985-86 Joint Use Billings 
under Lease and Use Agree- 
ment - Westates Airlines 85-0349 19 

23. Personal Services Contract 
for a Three Projector 12 to 
15 Minute Audio Vi sual 

Presentation 85-0350 19 



I. PUBLIC HEARING: 

24. Approving proposal of SFAIC 
to Finance Improvements in 
the South Terminal for Air 
California, Inc. by Issuance 
of Bonds Not to Exceed 

$10-Mi 1 1 Ion 85-0351 26 

25. Approving Proposal of SFAIC 
to Finance Improvements for 
Flying Tiger Lines by Issuance 
of Bonds in an Amount Not to 

Exceed $22-Million 85-0352 19-26 



CORRESPONDENCE: 26 



ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO 

CLOSED SESSION:: 26 



Minutes, November 19, 1985, Page 3 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

November 19, 1985 



CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:00 A.M. in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



ROLL CALL: 

Present: 



Morris Bernstein 
Z. L. Goosby 
J. Edward Fleishell 
Athena Tsougarakis 

William K. Coblentz arrived at 9:05 AM 



ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

The minutes of the regular meeting of October 15, 1985 were adopted by 
order of the Commission President. 

No. 85-0330 



D. ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRTEARY: 



In accordance with Section 54957.1 of 
the Brown Act, Jean Caramatti , 
Commission Secretary, announced the 
unanimous adoption of resolution 
number 85-0329 regarding the settle- 
ment of a litigated claim at the 
closed session of October 15, 1985. 



E. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

1. Report on Unregulated Smarte Carte Collectors 

Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director, told the Commission that this is a 
follow-up report to the Airport's original plan to control some of 



Minutes, November 19, 1985, Page 4 



the undesirable activities surrounding the Smarte Carte operation at 
the Airport. He said that as the report indicates it appears that 
the enforcement program has had a beneficial effect. He said that it 
is staff's recommendation to continue with that present enforcement 
program. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis wondered if the commencement of the new 
school year had anything to do with it. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the school situation simply took enter- 
prising youngsters out of the Airport and put them back in school. 
He felt that the more undesirable activities, such as harrassment, 
was going on inspite of the school situation. 



Commissioner Coblentz arrived at the call of the following item. 

2. Progress Report on the 1-380 Highway Construction Program 

Mr. Turpen explained that this is the quarterly report on the 
progress of the 1-380 construction program which involves the direct 
connection to 1-380 from the Airport as well as the San Bruno Avenue 
interchange at the north end of the Airport. He said that CalTrans 
is on schedule and the Airport expects these projects to be completed 
by the spring of 1987. He said that there has been minimal traffic 
obstruction at the Airport due to CalTran's cooperation in working 
with the Airport staff; they have done an excellent job of mitigating 
any traffic delays because of the construction. Mr. Turpen admitted 
that there have been some delays but none of any magnitude. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said that there was something in the report 
about a test. 

Mr. Turpen responded that that was on the West side of the Bayshore 
Freeway coming down off of 1-380. He said that they've placed 
topsoil on top of the existing soil to compact it so that it will 
sustain the vehicle load. When the the soil was tested they found 
that it was not compacted sufficiently so they had to bring in more 
soi 1 . 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked Mr. Turpen if he heard what the result 
of the test was. 

Mr. Turpen responded that he had not heard, but felt that ultimately 
it wi 1 1 be successful . 

Commissioner Goosby asked about the 6 ft. high earth berm (wall) 
between Highway 101 and the West of Bayshore, south of the 
interchange. He asked how far south of the interchange does Airport 
property extend. 

Mr. Turpen responded that it extends to Milbrae Avenue. 

Mr. Turpen explained that the berm was a concession by CalTrans 
because of the additional noise generated behind Runway 1 in the 
Bayside Manor area of Mi 1 lbrae. . .the area right behind the Airport. 
CalTrans agreed to construct a 6 foot berm, place an 8 foot fence on 
top of the berm and landscape it to hopefully mitigate against the 
backblast noise of departures on Runway 1. 



Minutes, November 19, 1985, Page 5 



United Airlines Proposed International Operations at SFO - Verbal 
Report 

Mr. Turpen showed the Commission a map depicting the layout of the 
Airport terminal area. He said that it is anticipated that sometime 
in early January, 1986 United Airlines will receive final approval to 
acquire Pan Am's Pacific route system. He explained that that 
Pacific route system at San Francisco involves two flights: Pan Am 5 
which goes non-stop to Hong Kong and Pan AM 11 which goes non-stop to 
Tokyo; connections are then made from Tokyo and Hong Kong to other 
Far East cities. Presently, those flights depart from Gates 58 and 
59 in the International Terminal and are highlighted by a blue circle 
on the map. United proposes to arrive at the International Terminal 
to use the customs facilities. Once their passengers depart the 
aircraft it will be relocated to Gate 80 or 82 in the North 
Terminal . 

Mr. Turpen said that the Commission's current policy is to have an 
International Terminal located in the center of the Airport for the 
obvious reason of passenger convenience. United's proposal would 
cause international departures to be scattered and skewed so that 
persons arriving on PSA, Western, TWA, who take Delta, Air 
California, and Northwest would be forced to walk over to the North 
Terminal, a distance considerably further than they presently have to 
walk. He said that United's concern, from their marketing 
perspective, is that their focus of operations is in the North 
Terminal and they would like to have their aircraft depart from there 
to minimize walking distances for their passengers coming into San 
Francisco from domestic cities and connecting to those international 
flights. 

Mr. Turpen explained that there are a couple of things involved in 
this decision. United has asked for several things to accompany this 
relocation. First, they've asked that a Duty Free store of some 
3,500 sq. ft. be conducted in this vicinity. United had initially 
specified the North Terminal reading room, where we currently have 
the tapestries, but have also indicated there are some other common 
areas that could be used. Mr. Turpen said that United would 
obviously want some Foreign Exchange facilities and would seek the 
Airport's approval to create a first class lounge within their own 
space in the North Terminal. 

Mr. Turpen said that because Duty Free Shoppers has the in-bond 
exclusive concession at the Airport for duty free they would 
naturally be the concessionaire; this would not entail re-bidding the 
concession and could be given to Duty Free Shoppers as an additional 
location. 

Mr. Turpen said that the Airport suggested to United that they 
operate out of the International Terminal as they had represented to 
the DOT in the joint application of Pan Am and United. The Airport 
then suggested that United might initially want to operate off their 
ticket counter which they propose using (Mr. Turpen pointed to the 
location on the map) and have their passengers come to the 
International Terminal. He explained that his concern is that until 
the magnitue of these on-line transfers with United is determined, it 
would be premature to spend almost $500,000 in facilities improve- 
ments. He said that as recently as yesterday, United indicated they 
would not prefer to do that; that they would prefer to operate from 
the North Terminal facility. 



Minutes, November 19, 1985, Page 6 



Mr. Turpen said that there are a couple of interesting facts here. 
The distance from the ticket counter United proposes to use to the 
two Gates (Mr. Turpen pointed to the map) is about 1,100 feet, as 
opposed to the distance from the other two gates which is about 1,400 
ft. The difference is about 300 ft. more for ticketed passengers 
going to the International Terminal as opposed to the North. 

Mr. Turpen said that United has been told that in the long term it is 
in their best interest to operate from the International Terminal. 
They were told that when Delta and Air Cal move the Airport is 
willing to make that ticket counter available to United; staff feels 
it will be equi-distant. . .the Air Cal ticket counter is 1,376 feet 
from these two (international) gates and it's 1,361 feet from the 
United gate. 

Mr. Turpen said that United' s concern continues to be the on-line 
transfers. He explained that the difference between inter-line and 
on-line is that inter-line comes from one carrier to another carrier; 
on-line comes from one carrier to the same carrier, like United to 
United. United's marketing people are indicating that 507. of the 
passengers to the Far East will be on-line transfers. . .originating in 
United cities and coming to San Francisco. He said that current 
evidence doesn't support that contention. Mr. Turpen said he has 
recommended to United that at least, initially, they begin operating 
from the International Terminal which was constructed for that 
purpose and where support facilities exist. Mr. Turpen makes this 
recommendation for several reasons: the support facilities; and the 
gate availability in the International Terminal. He said that all of 
the systems are set up to support an international operation and at 
some point, depending on what happens, we can take a look at some 
potential relocation and support United's operation in the North 
Terminal at some future date. As recently as yesterday, United has 
remained firm in its desire and request of the Airports Commission 
that they be allowed to operate from the North Terminal. 

Commissioner Coblentz asked if we have any control over that 

departure. 

Mr. Turpen responded that we do not. United Airlines, because they 
have the North Terminal gates, is permitted to relocate their 
aircraft to their leased gate and depart from the North Terminal. 
The question is the impact of that decision on the Airport. He felt 
that United is sensitive to the potential impact and as such is 
attempting to solicit the Airports Commission's permission to operate 
in this fashion. He felt that United recognizes the deviation from 
the policy the Commission has set in terms of the International 
Terminal and the philosophy that the Commission has on how San 
Francisco International operates. Los Anglese, for example, has 
three customs arrivals areas .. .Western and Pan AM, which operate 
part-time, and the new Bradley Terminal. He said it is just a 
function of how an Airport operates. 

Commissioner Coblentz said that he was interested in the Commission's 
jurisdiction. He said that United can make a unilateral decision to 
leave from the North Terminal but they must come into the 
International Terminal as that is where the customs is located. 

Mr. Turpen responded that that was correct. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis argued that it is desirable to have a Duty 
Free operation and that's something that has to be watched. 



Minutes, November 19, 1985, Page 7 



Commissioner Bernstein thought that Duty Free would be a secondary 
consideration; The important thing is the traveling public, and the 
airlines. He asked if United could switch locations with American. 

Mr. Turpen responded that he talked to United about that but he has 
not been able to contact the right people at American. . .they' ve had 
changes in personnel . 

Mr. Turpen felt it would place United in a more attractive position. 
He added that that was a long term solution. . .one that would not be 
in effect until early January. He added that in any event we could 
not effect a Duty-Free Shop in the North Terminal by early January 
...it will take at least 90 days to install a Duty Free facility. 

Mr. Turpen that the issue is really two flights a day and recent 
numbers that he has come up with indicate that we're talking about 10 
passengers from United that go on to the Pan Am flight. Out of the 
350 passengers to the Far East, ten come from United, yet United is 
citing 507„ on-line transfers, which would be 150 to 175 passengers. 
He said that the reality is that only 10 people are doing it. The 
remainder come from Western, TWA, PSA, American, Delta. He felt that 
it was important to consider that, depending on the day, roughly 70 
to 80% of the passengers coming to the Airport for Pan Am 5 and 11 
originate in San Francisco. Only about 20 to 307. come in as tranfers 
from other airlines. He suspected that for reasons of product 
loyalty some people would stay with the airline that brought them to 
San Francisco. 

Mr. Turpen said that United admits that physically and operationally 
they could operate out of the International Terminal, although it 
would cost them a few dollars more. Right now they run six flights 
from Oakland and have 30 some people employed at Oakland. They run 
eight flights out of San Jose a day and have some 40 people at San 
Jose. They run 130 flights out of San Francisco. He said he was 
sure there are some economies there but for whatever reason United is 
determined that it is a prudent marketing decision to operate those 
two airports at those levels. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that the Airport has put out leases to 
the Central Terminal based on the policy of the Commission that 
international flights would depart from the International Terminal. 
If you have a finite number of travellers going out on international 
airlines and you divide them into two geographic locations, you're 
requiring the concessionaire to plan his bidding process, his 
profits, and his expenses, to literally create a new business 
operation. Mr. Turpen felt that it was not quite fair because you're 
not increasing passenger volume. He said that no one's going to go 
to the Orient simply because United bought Pan Am's routes. He said 
that it seems to him that before the Commission considers changing 
its policy they have to think about the potential legal problems in 
entering into agreements based upon existing policy and then changing 
the policy after the fact. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said that she, too, had a difficult time 
with the notion of doing something on an interim basis before these 
things issues are resolved. . .perhaps. 

Mr. Turpen felt that there is as much if not more confusion on the 
part of United than there is on our side. He said that he has been 
trying for several months to get United to sit down and discuss what 
their plans were. Unfortunately, that did not happen until October 
24th. He said that even had we decided on that day what was going to 
happen we were too late then. 



Minutes, November 19, 1985, Page 8 



Mr. Turpen felt that there is an experience factor that needs to be 
gained by United Airlines in operating in this envi moment . As an 
example, he said that the ticket counter that United plans to use in 
the North Terminal is smaller than the ticket counter Pan Am used in 
the South Terminal, which was inadequate in both width and depth. He 
added that there were terrible congestion problems in the old 
international area as well. 

Commissioner Goosby mentioned that one of the airlines suggested that 
towing the airplanes from the International Terminal to the North 
Terminal might create congestion. 

Mr. Turpen responded that there's another problem. United committed 
15% of its gate facilities to the Airport for the duration of the M & 
R Program. As recently as last week, Air Canada told him that United 
has asked them to relocate, obviously because United needs the room. 
Mr. Turpen said that there is space available in the International 
Terminal, especially for international departures. We're running 
about four and half airplanes per gate per day out of the Interna- 
tional Terminal and United is running about eight and a half per day 
per gate out of the North Terminal. He said that real congestion 
exists in the North Terminal right now in terms of access to gates. 
He said that these things were pointed out to United and it was 
suggested that the prudent course would be to operate from the 
International Terminal, as was their original representation when 
their documentation was received in May. Mr. Turpen suggested that 
they start there and within 30, 60 or 90 days they can take a look at 
what' s happening. 

Commissioner Goosby said that the endorsement by the Mayor and the 
Commission of United's purchase of Pan Am's flights was conditional 
on United assuming Pan Am's obligations. 

Mr. Turpen said that was our understanding at the time. He felt it 
was important that the Commission recognize that this was not a 
singular decision. He said that two airlines have already indicated 
that if United can do this they don't want the Commission to say that 
they can't. He said that Northwest Orient will be on Boarding Area 
'C in the South Terminal and they could ask for equal treatment in 
terms of departing from their own concourse instead of the interna- 
tional. He said that at this time Northwest has agreed to depart its 
international uflights from the International Terminal, as has 
Peoples Express. Both airlines have agreed to relocate their 
domestic operations to the South Terminal. He said that this is not 
just a singular decision regarding two airplanes and a single tenant 
but a policy decision which will govern all of our future decisions 
in this regard. He said he will continue to work with United and 
return to the Commission with a final recommendation. 

Commissioner Goosby said that United got us to endorse the sale on a 
condition that we maintain the integrity of the Airport but this 
destroys the integrity of our whole plan. He felt that this smacks 
of a less than admirable intention. He felt that even though it 
might take some time to work out the logistics of using Pier 'E', 
United should at least consider operating from the International 
Terminal and then discuss the feasibility of using Pier ' E ' with 
American. 

Mr. Turpen said it would be very attractive for them. 

Commissioner Goosby said it would it also give United an opportunity 
to see how it works out in the International Terminal. 



Minutes, November 19, 1985, Page 9 



Mr. Turpen said he will share this with United and come back to the 
Commission at the December 3rd meeting with the final position. He 
expected that if the sales was consummated it would happen sometime 
in January which means that United would go into operation and assume 
Pan Am's route sometime in January. 

Mr. Turpen said that the sale has been given tentative approval; 
final approval will rest with the President of the Japanese 
Government. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if United had expressed a willingness to 
compensate all the concessionaires. 

Mr. Turpen responded that that was not really the case; they were 
still in discussion on that. 

Mr. Turpen said they were looking for something that will satisfy all 
parties . 

Commissioner Coblentz felt that the consensus of the Commission is 
that while we don't have the power to say to United that they cannot 
do it, it is the Commission's strong feeling, first for the 
convenience of the passengers; second, for the concessionaires to 
whom the Airport has an obligation, that this should not happen. He 
said that he hopes it doesn't but if it does it is something the 
Commission cannot stop. If United intends to go ahead, he felt it 
was the consensus of the Commission that we don't intend to expend 
money for facilities to be moved over to the North Terminal for 
United's convenience. 



Proposed Dental Clinic, Pharmacy and Watch Repair Concessions - 
Verbal Report 

Mr. Turpen said that this item was a matter of confusion to him and 
asked the Commission for guidance. 

Mr. Turpen said that the Commission instructed staff to do a 
passenger survey to determine interest in a proposed medical center, 
pharmacy, and watch repair shop. Subsequent to the Commission's 
instruction to staff, and unaware of that instruction to staff, he 
told Commissioner Bernstein that staff would do a pre-bid conference 
to determine whether or not there was anyone interested in pursuing 
this type of concession. He asked the Commission if they had a 
preference or would they simply allow him to proceed with this in 
either fashion that staff deems most appropriate. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said she would like to have a survey taken. 

Commissioner Bernstein felt that the decision should be based on a 
philosphy of what an Airport should be. He said that having a 
well-rounded Airport is not always a matter of making money, but a 
matter of accommodating the customers. He felt that these types of 
concessions might be good opportunities for small businesses. 

Mr. Turpen said staff will move on this promptly. 

Commissioner Fleishell hoped that the survey is more than a simple 
question of would you like to see A, B, and C at the Airport. He 
said other things should be included. 



Minutes, November 19, 1985, Page 10 



Report on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's Proposed 
Joint Powers Agreement 

Mr. Turpen said this report is self-explanatory and he was putting it 
before the Commission for information; there is no action required. 
He said that although we won't have any direct impact in the real 
plan, we will have some indirect impact to our San Francisco 
representative on what happens in the vicinity of the Airport. He 
felt our views will obviously be sought by the Commission should this 
develop. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked if the City, as a policy matter, ever 
decided that they would like to be part of the Joint Powers Authority. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the City has been involved but he was not 
sure what the official position has been. He felt that the City has 
obviously been supportive because it has gotten to this point. 



F. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

There were no items initiated by Commissioners. 

* * * 

G. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

Mr. Turpen suggested that it would be more appropriate if Item #6 was 
discussed in conjunction with Public Hearing Item #25 regarding Flying 
Tigers. Discussion of this item was put over to that portion of the 

calendar. 



Commissioner Goosby was recused from voting on the following item. This 
item was unanimously adopted. 

7. Award of South Terminal Shoe Shine Lease 

No. 85-0332 Resolution awarding the South Terminal 

Shoe Shine Lease to Leather Care - SFO. 

Mr. Turpen said that staff is recommending that the award for the 
bids of the South Terminal Shoe Shine lease go to Leather Care - SFO 
with a base bid of $116,000.00. Mr. Obregon from the Human Rights 
Commission is present to talk to the Airports Commission. He said 
that there has been some contention made that Leather Care applied 
for and received a local and minority bid preference when in fact it 
was not a minority operator. Subsequently, that bid preference for 
the minority business enterprise was removed. Mr. Turpen said that 
he finds nothing wrong with applying for a bid preference; the Human 
Rights Commission authorized it and the Human Rights Commission 
withdrew it. He said that in any event, HRC's award and subsequent 
withdrawal of their approval have no impact on the bids. 

Mr. Clemente Obregon, Contract Compliance Officer with the Human 
Rights Commission, said that "upon revising the documentations 
submitted by Leather Care - SFO in which there is a management 
agreement which precludes the owner from day-to-day operation, which 



Minutes, November 19, 1985, Page 11 



is part of 12D of the Administrative Code of the City and County of 
San Francisco, takes away all the rights of the minority business in 
the operation because the program wants the minority owner to operate 
the business, learn the procedure, and in this sense, with this 
agreement between Leather Care - California and Leather Care - SFO, 
it takes away all the management from the minority owner and places 
it in the hands of Leather Care - California, which is a separate 
entity from the owner." 

Commissioner Goosby asked if this was like a franchise. 

Mr. Obregon said that that was correct. He continued. . ."Secondly, 
since the business is going to be run out of 111 Anza in Burlingame, 
and 12D states that to get the local business preference you have to 
have an office located in San Francisco with secretarial services and 
the other pertinent operations of the buiness. . .that also precludes 
Leather Care - SFO from the 51 preference as a local business." 

Commissioner Goosby assumed that just because a bidder submits an 
application for LBE or MBE preference does not mean that it will auto- 
matical ly be granted. 

Mr. Obregon said that was correct. 

Mr. Turpen felt that the confusion came when staff basically adjusted 
their bid number because of the proposed LBE and MBE status. 

Mr. Turpen said that Leather Care's base bid was $116,000.00; the 
second low bidder was A Step Up, which received an LBE and MBE 
preference for a bid of approximately $107,000.00. Leather Care was 
the successful bidder even without the preference. 

Mr. Walter Kaplan, attorney and partner in A Step Up, apologized to 
the Commission for the manner in which he last addressed the 
Commi ssion. 

Mr. Kaplan reminded the Commission that the shoe shine bid was put 
out over the summer; the bids were due in August. He said that when 
the bids came in he submitted a protest on the award of the bid to 
Leather Care for a number of reasons. He felt that there was 
apparent fraud as to who all these people (with Leather Care) were. 
The Commission put the bids out again. He said that Leather Care 
then changed the configuration of their organization yet the same 
names were involved. 

Mr. Kaplan said that their documents are inconsistent as to who the 
legal entities are; they attempted to obtain a minority business 
preference and a local business preference simply through the filing 
of documents which do not hold credibility when closely examined. He 
said he was under the impression that because they were not going to 
receive the certification that they would not be getting the award. 
He said he spoke with Mr. Lanzilla yesterday and was informed that a 
recommen- dation would still be made to award the lease to Leather 
Care. He said that at that time he submitted a letter to Mr. Turpen, 
raising a number of issues he thought the Airport staff would have 
become aware of and would have dealt with. 

Mr. Kaplan argued that inconsistent bidder names were submitted so 
you don't know who's running the business. He also felt that there 
seems to be an apparent fraud in the business interest as the 
interests are owned by different people and different aspects of the 
Leather Cares. He said that there are numerous Leather Care 
organizations and each one has different interests; they don't appear 



Minutes, November 19, 1985, Page 12 



to conform to the records of the County Clerk's Office in the 
counties where they should be recorded. He said that they appear to 
be fraudulent, both in their attempt to gain preferences and in there 
configuration. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that since the 5% preference for each of 
the two credit areas has been removed, how does who runs Leather Care 
or whether or not they are recorded affect the Airport. 

Mr. Kaplan responded that the Airport should not want to encourage or 
approve fraud in the bidding process. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that there is no evidence of fraud and 
that staff disagrees with his claim. 

Mr. Kaplan said that staff has not addressed the issues raised in his 
letter dated November 18. He said that different people are 
allegedly operating the business and have interest in the business. 
He felt that there should be accuracy, credibility and consistency in 
all of the documents. He said that issues of liability ultimately 
can ari se. . .people can be injured and can sue so you must have an 
organized, consistent business structure that complies with the law. 
That does not exist here. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked Don Garibaldi, Airports General Counsel, 
if he has reviewed Mr. Kaplan's comments. 

Mr. Garibaldi responded that he just received the letter this morning 
but he was already aware of some of these contentions. He said that 
Leather Care - SFO will have to provide us with a performance bond, 
with adequate insurance as required by the lease and he didn't see 
any problem with the Airports Commission dealing them. He siad that 
they are a legal entity and bidder. 

Commissioner Goosby asked what the relationship between Leather Care 
- California and Leather Care - SFO was. He asked if Leather Care - 
SFO was a franchise or was a manager hired to run the operation. 

Mr. Garibaldi responded that it was his understanding that Leather 

Care - California will manage the operation and there is a management 

agreement between SFO and California to that effect. Mr. Garibaldi 
added that Leather Care - SFO is owned by Mr. Lee. 

Commissioner Goosby said that Mr. Lee, in effect, is an investor. 

Mr. Garibaldi added that the arrangement is such that it cost Mr. Lee 
his LBE/WBE preferences but he is still the high bidder. 

Ms. Angela Gittens, Deputy Director for Business and Finance, said 
that HRC had indicated that since Mr. Lee is not managing the 
business he cannot get the preference. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis clarified that not getting the preference 
does not disqualify him. 

Ms. Gittens said that was correct. 

Mr. Turpen added that the difference would have been if the loss of 
the preference caused his bid amount to fall below that of the second 
bidder. 

Commissioner Goosby said he raised the questions because Leather 
Care's sense of responsibility and integrity was being questioned. 



Minutes, November 19, 1985, Page 13 



Mr. Kaplan argued that the point to be focused on is that Leather 
Care - California is operating this business. He quoted a letter to 
Mr. Lanzilla, dated November 12th, that Leather Care - California is 
a partnership between Mr. Simonian. . . "if s organized as a partnership 
between myself and my wife, Judy and Kent Edwards." He said that the 
San Mateo County Clerk has no record of a Leather Care - California 
partnership. The Clerk's files show only a ficticious business 
staement, File No. 69677, dated September 4th, 1985, filed by Gary 
Simonian, listing himself as sole owner with a home address in 
Mi 1 1 brae. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked who will be responsible for the 
contract. 

Mr. Gittens responded that Richard Lee of Leather Care - SFO will be 

responsible. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said that is the company that we should be 
concerned with. 

Ms. Gittens agreed. 

Mr. Kaplan argued that he thought the Airport should be concerned 
with the people who would be managing and operating the business. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said the Airport is doing everything it can, 
within legal limits, to ensure that the interests of the Airport and 
City are protected. She said that staff has done every- thing they 
can to meet the rules of the game and there's nothing more that can 
be said. 

Mr. Kaplan argued that they filed fraudulent applications, showing 
fruadulent interests in businesses. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis responded that they are not the ones that 

filed. 

Mr. Kaplan continued that he cited earlier on in his last letter that 
Mr. Lee shows a fraudulent application to his prior application of 
August 24th. He said that there has been a series of frauds and 
attempts to misrepresent themselves to the Commission. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked Mr. Kaplan if he felt the company should 
be owner/operated all the way through and not allowed to have a 
management contract. 

Mr. Kaplan insisted that the point he was trying to make was that 
there appears to be fraudulent interests of ownership in the 
different degrees of Leather Care. He said that there's a Leather 
Care - SFO... which bid in August as one entity and having two members 
to its partnership. He said that they never filed any kind of 
document showing they were a legal entity. He said that the second 
time around they filed as a sole proprietorship, using the same name 
and one of the same people. He said that Leather Care - California 
claims to be a partnership with a number of people yet the records 
show that it's only one person. 

Mr. Kaplan argued that if someone gets injured in one of these shoe 
shine shops they're going to sue the people running it, the people 
managing it, the people owning it, the Airport and the City; they 
will look for the deep pocket. He once again argued that Leather 
Care has not, with any credibility, represented themselves in a 
consistent way throughout this whole process. 



Minutes, November 19, 1985, Page 14 



Commissioner Bernstein said that Mr. Kaplan kept using words like 
"apparent", and "somehow" and he did not think that was adequate 
proof. He said that if he were to claim fraud he would have to show 
something that was more than "apparent". 

Commissioner Goosby felt that since he has not had the opportunity to 
read the letter submitted by Mr. Kaplan, and Mr. Garibaldi has not 
had the opportunity to study it, then perhaps this item should be put 
over to the next meeting. 

Mr. Kent Edwards, owner of Leather Care - National, said that all the 
entities are present. He said he has been listening to an attorney 
use the word fraud and he does not know what Mr. Kaplan is talking 
about. He felt that the entire matter could be cleared up today. 

Mr. Edwards said that Leather Care - National has a partnership agree- 
ment with Leather Care - California. He said that the purpose of 
Leather Care - California is to establish shoe shine stands in 
concessions throughout the entire state of California. Richard Lee 
is the sole owner of the SFO Leather Care and will be the investor 
and overseer of profits. 

Mr. Edwards introduced Gary Simonian and Richard Lee. He said they 
are registered in the City and County of San Francisco as Leather 
Care - SFO and he is registered in San Mateo County as Leather Care - 
Cal ifornia. 

Commissioner Coblentz said he made the motion for approval of Leather 
Care and will stand by it. 

Commissioner Goosby felt that since he has not had enough time to 
assimilate all the information presented today, and the City Attorney 
has not had enough time to deal with the full impact of Mr. Kaplan's 
last communication, he wished to abstain from voting for lack of 
i nformation. 

Commissioner Coblentz moved that Commissioner Goosby be recused from 
voting. Commissioner Bernstein seconded the motion. The vote was 
unanimous to recuse Commissioner Goosby from voting on this item. 



The following items were unanimously adopted. 

Authorization to Award Leases of Mobile Catering in the Taxi Staging 
Area of the Garage 

No. 85-0033 Resolution awarding Lease A and Lease 

B for mobile catering in the taxi 
staging area of the garage to Express 
Food Systems and Mr. & Mrs. Charles 
Abad. 

Mr. Turpen said that Human Rights Commission certification has been 
received and he recommends approval to the high bidder. 

Resolution Requesting Authorization to Award South Terminal Cigarette 
Vending Lease 

No. 85-0334 

Mr. Turpen said that this item was before the Commission once before 
and the minimum was reduced from $10,000 to $8,000. He said that 
bids came in at $11,000 and $8,000. He recommended approval for JB 
Vending. 



Minutes, November 19, 1985, Page 15 



10. Proposed Revisions to the Public Parking Rate Increase Scheduled to 
take Effect January 1 , 1986 

No. 85-0335 The Commission approved an earlier 

resolution to increase public parking 
rates effective January 1, 1986. The 
attached proposal would limit this 
rate increase to (1) rates in the 
first two hours in the garage, and, 
(2) the 24-hour rate in Lot D. 

Mr. Turpen said that this confirms the previous public hearing on 
the parking rate amendment for the first two hours in the central 
garage and for the daily rate in the long term parking lot. 

11. Authorization Approving Schematic Design for AT&T International 
Cal 1 ing Center 

No. 85-0336 Resolution approving schematic design 

and authorizing construction of the 
AT&T International Calling Center 
subject to the Tenant Improvement 
Guide. 

Commissioner Coblentz said he understood that this has been approved 
by Jason Yuen and Howard Friedman. 

Mr. Turpen said that this is something staff tried to get when the 
International Terminal opened and was finally coming to fruition. He 
felt it would be a plus for the International Terminal. 

Ms. Gittens said that this will be a staffed facility. 



The following item was adopted by a 4-1 vote with Commissioner Goosby 
casting the dissenting vote. 

12. Modification to Bond Counsel Agreement with Orrick, Herrington & 
Sutcliffe - $15,999.00 

No. 85-0337 Resolution authorizing a modification 

to the Bond Counsel Agreement to 
provide for services related to the 
proposed defeasance of the Western 
Airline's 1967 San Francisco Airport 
Improvement Corporation Bonds. 

Commissioner Coblentz felt that the Airport should instigate a 
procedure used with other professionals, namely architects. He 
agreed that while the Orrick firm has served the Airport well he felt 
that there are probably other law firms who are well versed in this 
field and we should go out for competitive bidding for bond counsel. 

Ms. Gittens said that there was a commitment in the last modification 
that for the next bond issue we would go with an RFP for bond counsel. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that the last time the Airport had a bond 
issue the Commission raised this question. He said that the 
Commission was told by staff that it was best not to change attorneys 
because this was part of a continuing issue. 



Minutes, November 19, 1985, Page 16 



Commissioner Fleishell said that there will be no further bond issues 
that are not part of the continuing issue so if the argument was 
valid three years ago, it certainly is valid again. He felt that the 
step that ought to be taken is to require these people to associate a 
minority firm as you won't find minority firms that have any great 
reputation in the bond counselling business. 

Commissioner Coblentz said he did not know of any minority firm that 
has any experience in bond deals. 

Commissioner Goosby said he has personally talked to a number of 
firms in the last six months who have purposely enlarged their firms 
to include this expertise. He said that they may not have the 
experience that Orrick and Herrington have but they have the 
background. 

Commissioner Coblentz said he has not seen them in any bond issue and 
he has seen every bond issue that's come out. He felt they should be 
brought in but does not want them used as fronts. 

Commissioner Fleishell suggested joint venturing in the same way that 
other cities were doing. 

Commissioner Goosby said that Morrison and Foerster has joint 
ventured with three minority firms in their other national offices 
and they have been asked by one or two Commissioners to do it here. 

Commissioner Coblentz thought that was a valid point. He said that 
bond work has been pretty much of a closed shop and we should try to 
open it up. He felt that as far as this was concerned the Commission 
should approve it but call for bids on the next bond work. 

Commissioner Bernstein felt that it should include other work as 

wel 1 , not just bond i ssues. 

Commissioner Coblentz agreed. 



13. Modification No. 3, Noise Monitoring System Expansion, Phase IV 
Tracor, Inc. 

No. 85-0338 Modification No. 3 to Contract CT 

10320, an agreement with Tracor, Inc. 
Applied Sciences Group for profes- 
sional services to expand the Noise 
Monitoring System. 

This modification covers Phase IV of 
the expansion and provides for 
automatic receipt of the FAA flight 
strip departure data for aircraft 
identification for Runways 01, 10, and 
19 for the intergradation of flight 
strip data, aircraft ID, weather and 
noise level data, and investigation of 
reported Runway 01 back blast noise 
problems. 

Mr. Turpen said that this involves Phase IV of the Noise Monitoring 
System and is the last major phase in the development of the System. 
He said that it will give us the capability of monitoring all 
departures from San Francisco Airport. 



Minutes, November 19, 1985, Page 17 



14. Award of Airport Contract No. 824 
Taxiway Centerline Lighting 

No. 85-0339 Resolution awarding Contract No. 824. 

Eight bids were received on October 
16, 1985 ranging from $1,875,039.00 to 
$2,977,318.00. 



5. Award of Airport Contract No. 1573R 

Concrete Divider Barrier for Cart Road, Boarding Area 'D' 

No. 85-0340 Resolution awarding Contract No. 1573R 

to Chaides Construction Co., Inc. in 
the amount of $98,815.00. Four bids 
were received on October 18, 1985 
ranging from $98,815.00 to $153,382.50 



16. Award of Airport Contract No. 1011A 

Reconstruct Taxiway 'C to Plot 50, Phase I 

No. 85-0341 Resolution awarding Contract No. 1011A 

to 0'Grady Paving, Inc. in the amount 
of $3,707,459.00 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

The following items were unanimously adopted. 

17. Type II Modification for Three South Terminal Complex Construction 
Contracts 

Contract modification to provide 
additional work for unforeseen 
conditions, increased scope, 
deficiencies in the plans and 
specifications, and design changes. 

No. 85-0342 Contract 1410ABCD - South Terminal 

Renovation Phase I - $8,066.01 

No. 85-0343 Contract 1410EF - South Terminal 

Renovation Phase II - $352,480.00 

No. 85-0344 Contract 1414AB - Boarding Area B 

Renovation/South Concession Area - 
$28,553.00 



Tenant Improvement: 

Western Airlines Boarding Area 'B' 

Leasehold Improvements - (T-3055) 

No. 85-0345 New construction and remodeling of 

Western Airline's Ground Operations 
Offices - $250,000. No cost to 
Airport. 



Minutes, November 19, 1985, Page 18 



19. Tenant Improvement: 

Eastern Airlines Cargo Plot 7S Loading Dock - (T-3008) 

No. 85-0346 $200,000.00 - No rental credit. 



20. Tenant Improvement: 

Philippine Airlines Cargo Facility Modification - (T-3052) 

No. 85-0347 $35,000.00 - No rental credit. 



21. Statistical Adjustment for 1985-86 Joint Use Billings Under Lease and 
Use Agreement 

No. 85-0348 Resolution adjusting 1985-86 Joint Use 

Billings pursuant to Section 101. W of 
the Airline Airport Lease and Use 
Agreement for World Airways, Inc. 

22. Statistical Adjustments for 1985-86 Joint Use Billings Under Lease 
and Use Agreement 

No. 85-0349 Resolution adjusting 1985-86 Joint Use 

Billings pursuant to Section 101. W of 
the Airline Airport Lease and Use 
Agreement for Westates Airlines, Inc. 

23. Personal Services Contract for a Three Projector 12 to 15 Minute 
Audio Visual Presentation 

No. 85-0350 Resolution approving a personal 

services contract for a three 
projector 12 to 15 minute audio-visual 
presentation of the Airport's Noise 
Abatement Program in the amount of 
$4,640.00. 



I. PUBLIC HEARING: 

The Public Hearing was opened at 10:07 AM and closed at 10:45 AM, there 
being no further public testimony. 

Item #25 was called out of order and discussed in concert with Item #6. 

Item #25 was unanimously adopted as amended. 

25. Approving Proposal of SFAIC to Finance Improvements for Flying Tiger 
Lines by Issuance of Bonds in an Amount Not To Exceed $22-Million 

No. 85-0352 



Minutes, November 19, 1985, Page 19 



Item #6 was adopted as amended by a 4-1 vote with Commissioner Tsougarakis 
casting the dissenting vote. 

6. Resolution Awarding Site Lease, Plot 50A 

No. 85-0331 Resolution awarding a long-term site 

lease of Plot 50A to the Flying Tiger 
Line, Inc. 



Commissioner Bernstein asked Mr. Lawrence Nagin, Senior Vice 
President of Administration and General Counsel for Flying Tigers, if 
he wished to address the Commission. 

Mr. Nagin introduced Mr. Denis Kalscheur, Vice President and 
Treasurer of Flying Tigers and Jackie Greer Wright, Director of 
Properties . 

Mr. Nagin thanked the Commission and Airport staff for their consid- 
eration and patience over the years in dealing with Flying Tigers 
property issues at San Francisco International Airport. Mr. Nagin 
said that unfortunately over the years Flying Tigers has suffered the 
pangs of de-regulation, foreign competition, recession, high interest 
rates and fuels prices, as have most of the Airport's other tenants, 
and over that period of time they have had to defer their plans with 
respect to improving their facilities. He said that in looking at 
the staff recommendation with respect to Item No. 6, there are three 
open items that Mr. Turpen has reported to the Commission and 
indicated needed addressing. 

Mr. Nagin said that their Board of Directors has approved the process 
of negotiations in a Board action taken in October. He said that 
there is another Board of Director's meeting scheduled for this 
Thursday at which time the Board will be briefed on the results of 
today's Commission meeting. 

Mr. Nagin said that there are three open items. The first deals with 
the sublease space. He reminded the Commission that Fying Tigers was 
in competition with Northwest Orient Airlines to develop Plot 50A, 
the last remaining undeveloped piece of cargo property at San 
Francisco International Airport. He said that the problem is 
compounded by the fact that Northwest and Pan Am will share a 
facility. Pan American now has approval from the Department of 
Transportation, subject to the President's approval, to sell its 
routes to United Airlines. Mr. Nagin felt that that reduces the need 
for Pan Am to have 33,000 sq. ft., which is the amount that Flying 
Tigers is to dedicate to a sublessee. He said that Pan Am has not 
yet determined what it's going to do yet and they have no affirmative 
agreement with them at this point. The key is that the 33,000 sq. ft. 
that Flying Tigers has been asked to commit for a subtenant was 
earmarked for Pan Am... this issue arose even before Pan Am and United 
agreement took place. He said that Flying Tigers agreed to provide a 
sublease area for a prospective tenant based upon the representations 
that it's needed. Flying Tigers understands the need; their concern 
is the risk and that is where they disagree on this issue with 
Airport staff. He said that their concern is that but for the 
request that Flying Tigers add this 33,000 sq. ft. to their facility, 
they wouldn't be doing it. He said that they are not proprietors; 
they are not in the real estate business; they want to have their 
facilities and they them to be first class for their customers and 
employees. He felt that on the other hand, they don't feel they 
should be in a position to have to run the risk. 



Minutes, November 19, 1985, Page 20 



Mr. Nagin said that the 33,000 sq. ft. is the amount of space that 
Pan Am is currently occupying at the Northwest facility. He added 
that that used to be the total Pan Am facility and then Northwest 
moved in with them. 

Mr. Nagin said that priorto working for Flying Tigers he worked for 
the Los Angeles Department of Airports as their Counsel. He said 
that he recognizes that cities are not in the business of risk; but 
he did not think it should be Flying Tiger's either. He said that 
Flying Tigers wants to cooperation. They see the need for staff's 
recommendation but on the other hand, the risk hurts. 

Mr. Nagin said the second item includes the negotiation bond. He 
said pointed out that they not only have members of Flying Tiger's 
staff present but representatives of Paine Weber, their underwriter, 
as well. He told the Commission that both the bond counsel and the 
Underwriter has been hired. Flying Tigers wants to move and complete 
the deal this year as they are concerned about a change in the law, 
interest rates and other fluctuations that may occur in the market. 

Mr. Nagin said that the third item regards the maximum payment of up 
to $50,000.00 to relocate Pan Am. He said that Flying Tigers does 
not like being in the business of relocating a competitor, especially 
when there is no guarantee that they will come into their facility. 

Mr. Nagin said that Flying Tigers wants to cooperate and they want to 
do what's right. They realize it is the last piece of parcel to be 
developed but on the other hand the risk is very strong. He said 
that if the Commission takes action today he will report back to 
their Board on Thursday. 

Commissioner Coblentz asked who came up with the $18,500.00 yearly 
rent. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the Real Estate Department came up with 
that figure. He said that was a standard rate. 

Mr. Turpen said that the Commission was presented with a copy of a 
telex received by his office from Phil Strohm of Northwest Orient 
Airlines yesterday afternoon. Mr. Turpen said that Mr. Strom was 
fogged in in Minneapolis and asked that the telex be made part of the 
record. 

Mr. Turpen read Mr. Strohm's telex (see attached.) 

Commissioner Fleishell felt that the resolution relating to the 
bonding that should be tied in directly to any substitute resolution 
dealing with the lease terms. That should be tied in with a specific 
time frame unless the lease document is signed and approved by the 
Board of Supervisors on or before a specific date. Commissioner 
Fleishell added that he was astonished that this is before the 
Commission since Mr. Nagin stated that he is not agreeing to these 
things the Commission has before it for consideration. He felt that 
there is still a great deal of negotiation yet to do. 

Commissioner Coblentz asked if there was a time factor due to the 
Internal Revenue code. 

Mr. Turpen responded that in an effort to be cooperative staff has 
attempted to work as expeditiously as possible to allow Flying Tiger 
to take advantage of any opportunities this year. He said that were 
it not for that we would not be before the Commission today; staff 
would still be arguing the issue and hoping to come to some 
resolution. 



Minutes, November 19, 1985, Page 21 



Mr. Turpen said that when he made the recommendation to the Airports 
Commission to award to Flying Tiger, it was based on our ability to 
strike some equitable arrangement with Flying Tiger and Northwest. 
The feeling was that Flying Tiger had been a long term tenant in the 
north field and if they developed this space and could take Pan Am 
out of the existing Northwest facility, Northwest could stay where 
they are. That was the arrangement that was struck. 

Mr. Turpen said that we have since run into some problems. . .whether 
it is Flying Tigers failure to actively pursue an arrangement with 
Pan American or Pan Am's relunctance to enter into an agreement with 
Flying Tiger. Mr. Turpen said that Pan Am agreed to nothing during 
this time. 

Mr. Nagin said that other than the staff involvement Pan Am is really 
a stranger to this deal and he did not believe they were present 
today. He said that Northwest sends a telex and says $50,000 is 
inadequate for Pan Am. Mr. Nagin said that it's too early for Pan Am 
to make a decision. Except for possibly a flight a day to Honolulu, 
Pan Am is getting rid of everything west of California so the strong 
Asian traffic, which is the bulwork of any freight facility at San 
Francisco International, is going to be gone. He said that answers 
to questions like how much space they need and where they would move, 
have not received definitive answers. He said that Flying Tigers is 
willing to resolve the issue and that the $50,000.00 with respect to 
Pan Am's move is fair; it was discussed with staff and he thought the 
staff report said it was minimally acceptable. 

Mr. Nagin, in response to Commissioner Fleishell's question as to why 
this issue is before the Commission, said that Flying Tigers is 
pushed by the issue of the end of the year financing needs, change in 
the Internal Revenue code and all sorts of contingencies that cannot 
be contemplated. He pointed out that this is subject to their Board 
approval so that any action taken today by the Commission would be 
transmitted to their Board on Thursday and they would make their 
decision. He said it was important to move on the public hearing on 
the bonds, and asked that the Commission make a determination on 
these three open issues. 

Commissioner Coblentz said he has read all the material and if he 
could he would ask that this item be put over but he realizes that 
that cannot be done. The Commission has an obligation to Flying 
Tigers to make a decision. In light of that, he rejected Northwest 
Orient's request that it be raised to $150,000.00 but would go along 
with staff on the recommendations made on those three points. 

Commissioner Goosby said that the 33,000 was a big chunk and Flying 
Tigers recommended that they not be responsible for the 
subleasing. . .that the City should be responsible. 

Mr. Nagin said that that was correct. He said that Flying Tigers was 
not in competition with the City in terms of subletting. He asked 
for a moral commitment, at the very least, so that he could indicate 
to his Board of Directors that the City recognizes it is asking 
Flying Tigers to swallow a pill on this one and that the Airport 
would use its best efforts to find a tenant. Mr. Nagin said he would 
appreciate a sense of the Commission so that he could report it to 
his Board. 

Mr. Turpen responded that he has been involved in discussions on 
potential reimbursements or potential subleases of the space from 
Flying Tiger to the City, but staff has always been adamant in saying 
that it would actively and agressively pursue lessees for this space 
so that Flying Tiger would not be left with this space on a long-term 
basi s . 



Minutes, November 19, 1985, Page 22 



Commissioner Coblentz felt that the Airport had a moral commitment to 
actively pursue this and not leave Flying Tiger hanging. 

Mr. Turpen responded that that was the representation that was made 
to Northwest. He said that the deal at the beginning was that the 
space would be built at the expense of the successful competitor for 
the Plot 50A lease and would be borne by them, although the City 
would make every effort to ensure that a tenant was found. He said 
that that was the deal from the beginning and that was Northwest 
Orient's understanding when they agreed to withdraw from competition. 

Commissioner Coblentz felt that the indication of the Commission was 
that we have had a longstanding relationship with Flying Tigers and 
we should help them as much as we could. He reiterated his belief 
that the Commission had a moral commitment. 

Mr. Nagin appreciated the fact that Commissioner Coblentz felt the 
Commission had a moral commitment and he presumed that the rest of 
the Commission agreed. He added that the bond was a cost item. 

Commissioner Coblentz asked if that it 57.? 

Mr. Nagin responded that staff would like six months rent, a cash 
collateralized bond - $150,000.00. He suggested that if this deal is 
not made and documents signed by the end of December, then at that 
point they will put up the negotiating bond. He said once again that 
Flying Tigers is a long time tenant; they operate worldwide and they 
have no history anywhere of a negotiating bond. He felt it was a bad 
precedent. 

Mr. Turpen responded that in this case both parties were asked if 
they would be prepared to put up a negotiation bond in the event they 
don't carry forth with the project. Both parties indicated in their 
presentations to Airport staff that they would post a negotiation 
bond. Staff has been negotiating in good faith with Flying Tiger and 
has awaited this negotiation bond but has yet to receive it. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if the Airport would ultimately be 
responsible for the bonds since they were San Francisco Airport 
Improvement Bonds. 

Mr. Garibaldi responded that the Airport would not be responsible. 
The Airport Improvement Corporation is a separate legal entity from 
the Airport; it is not part of city government and this is not a 
pledge of Ci ty funds . 

Commissioner Coblentz said that while there is an implication that we 
are responsible, as a practical matter legally, we are completely 
insulated. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said that we require a bond from everybody 
and she did not understand why there is an issue with Flying Tiger. 

Commissioner Coblentz said that we require a performance bond but not 
a negotiation bond. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis felt it was the same difference. 

Commissioner Goosby said that the negotiation bond is insurance that 
they will negotiate in good faith. 

Ms. Gittens said that was correct. Staff's concern had been that 
Flying Tiger would not go ahead with the deal and we wanted some 
revenue protection against any additional delay. A performance bond 
refers to a performance on the lease. 



Minutes, November 19, 1985, Page 23 



Mr. Nagin said that it is not as if they were a stranger to the 
Airport. He said that Flying Tigers pays $800,000.00 a year in rent. 

Commissioner Fleishell did not think this could be accomplished by 
December 31. He felt that the recommendation made by Commissioner 
Coblentz should be followed and the resolution should be adopted as 
is. He said that with this time limit you almost have to sign it 
within the next week to get it before the Board of Supervisors. He 
did not know how you can sell bonds before you have the approval of 
the Board and the City process was ponderous and slow. 

Commissioner Coblentz thought that Flying Tigers did not have to put 
up a negotiation bond until this has been approved by the Board of 
Supervi sors . 

Ms. Gittens told Commissioner Coblentz that that was not our 
position; staff wants the negotiation bond Thursday before we submit 

it to Board. 

Mr. Turpen said that at the very beginning both parties were asked if 
they were prepared to put up a negotiation bond to protect the 
Airport in case this deal falls apart. 

Commissioner Goosby asked how much the negotiation bond was for. 

Mr. Turpen responded that it was $146,000. 

Commissioner Coblentz said that if the Board of Supervisors was 
hesitant in acting, Flying Tigers would forfeit the bond. 

Mr. Nagin said that was correct. 

Commissioner Coblentz said that knowing the arbitrariness and 
capriciousness of the Board of Supervisors he would not want to put 
up any money on that. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked why the bond wasn't put up months ago 
when the negotiations began. 

Mr. Turpen argued that the fact of the matter is that we repeatedly 
asked for the bond. We also negotiated repeatedly over time in good 
faith because we recognized the time constraint. He said that were 
there no time constraints he would not be bringing this before the 
Commission today. The Airport staff is trying to be cooperative, 
trying to accelerate the time frame, trying to work toward this while 
at the same time not receiving the things they expected to receive by 
agreement from the beginning. He said that the Commission can waive 
it but what was discussed at the outset should be made clear. 

Mr. Nagin appreciated Mr. Turpen's indulgence and desire to move 
ahead. He said that staff has been most cooperative and forthcoming 
with their position. 

Mr. Turpen said he was not certain that there was enough time 
remaining to get this done administratively but he would be happy to 
try. 

Commissioner Coblentz asked if the $146,000 was for the past six 
months . 

Ms. Gittens responded that it was; it should have been put up in 
June. Staff should have stopped talking to them in June. 



Minutes, November 19, 1985, Page 24 



Comissioner Coblentz again said that he wouldn't want to put up a 
bond to rely on the Board of Supervisors or any legislative body and 
he was willing to waive it. 

Commissioner Goosby agreed with Commissioner Coblentz. He wondered 
if a statement on the Airport's moral commitment should be added to 
the resolution. 

Commissioner Coblentz felt that it should not be added. 

Commissioner Coblentz amended his motion to delete the negotiation 
bond of $146,000.00. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis seconded the motion. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that there should be a sunset provision 
in the resolution so we are not hampered by having any resolutions on 
the books to prevent us from negotiating in good faith with someone 
el se. 

Mr. Turpen said the resolution will be amended to include the date. 

Mr. Turpen, clarifying the Commission's position, said that if by 
Flying Tigers own hand they withdraw from these negotiations the 
Airport staff will reopen negotiations with any interested party. 
If, by virtue of :he Board of Supervisors action there is some delay 
staff will come back to the Airports Commission with an amended 
resolution and the evidence which would support that amended 
resolution. 

Mr. Nagin said that he will personally contact Mr. Turpen on Thursday 
after their Board meeting. He thanked the Commission for its time. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked what the amendment was. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked what the date was. 

Mr. Garibaldi understood the date to be December 31, 1985. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the amendment will be in the first resolve 
and authorizes the Director to execute a lease by and through the 
City and County of San Francisco and Flying Tiger for Plot 50A...by 
December 31st. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that the bond resolution should also have 
the appropriate language. 

Mr. Garibaldi said that since bond counsel is present he wanted to 
make certain that there was no problem in making these amendments to 
the bond resolution. He called on Mr. Rick Smith, who is with the 

bond counsel, for his opinion. 

Mr. Smith said there was no problem. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if the airlines guarantee paymenton the 
bonds . 

Mr. Garibaldi said that numerous bonds have been issued... the same 
Improvement Corporation but separate bond issues. He said that the 
particular lessee of the improvements guarantees the payment. 

Commissioner Goosby asked what happens if the lessee defaults on the 
payments . 



Minutes, November 19, 1985, Page 25 



Mr. Garibaldi asked Mr. Rick Smith to respond. 

Mr. Smith responded that under the current drafts of the documents 
they distributed, which is subject to both approval of the Airports 
Commission and the SFAIC, if there's a default by Flying Tiger under 
the facilities lease, there would be the right of the trustee for the 
bond holders to foreclose upon the facility and sell it. ..there would 
be a pot of money from which the bond holders would be paid; that is 
their security and the trustee could sell the facility. That means 
that someone else would have the right to lease that facility from 
the Airport for cargo purposes. Mr. Smith added that a bank or trust 
company would be trustee. 

Mr. Nagin asked Mr. Smith if it was true that a one year debt service 
reserve would cover it to allow the Airport time, as the proprietor, 
to find a tenant. 

Commissioner Fleishell said that on a foreclosure the Airport should 
have the right to consent to the purchase or foreclosure, the same as 
we consent to all other leaseholders at the Airport. 

Mr. Garibaldi said that that can be included. 

Mr. Smith said that that consent is in the current draft of the 
documents that were distributed and will be subject to the Airport's 
consent. 



The following item was unanimously adopted. 

24. Approving Proposal of SFAIC to Finance Improvements in the South 

Terminal for Air California, Inc. by Issuance of Bonds Not-to-Exceed 
$1 0-Mi 1 1 ion 

Mr. Turpen told the Commission that Air Cal will be moving from its 
North Terminal location to a South Terminal location on Boarding Area 

'C . 

There was no public testimony on this item. 



CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission 

* * * 



L. 



ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 



There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 10:45 A.M. to go into closed session. 



(^^/tv^vfc- 



n Caramatt 



Jean caramatti 
/ommission Secretary 



Minutes, November 19, 1985, Page 26 



EASYLINK MBX 7945660A001 18N0V85 17:54/18:11 EST 
VIA: 509520 

TO: 62770910 

SFO AIRPORT 

NUAIR STP A 

TELEX PAID ST PAUL MN 18 NOVEMBER 1985 

LOUIS A. TURPEN 

SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT 

TELEX 509520 

NORTHUEST AIRLINES IS IN RECEIPT OF YOUR NOVEMBER 12 MEMORANDUM 
ADDRESSED TO THE AIRPORTS COMMISSION REGARDING THE RESOLUTION OF 
AWARDING THE PLOT 50A SITE LEASE. NORTHUEST HAS TUO PRINCIPLE 
CONCERNS UHICH ARE AS FOLLOUS: 

1 . PAN AM RELOCATION 



ON PAGE 3 OF YOUR LETTER IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH, YOUR STATEMENT 
IS THAT +1 MUST CONSIDER THEIR PROPOSAL MINIMALLY ACCEPT A"BLE+ . 
THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO NORTHUEST. NORTHUEST AGREED TO 
DROP OUR INTEREST IN PLOT 50A SITE ON THE CONDITION THAT 
PAN AM UAS RELOCATED FROM THE PRESENT NORTHUEST ,F AC I L I T Y AT 
PLOT 9A UHEN THE FLYING TIGER FACILITY UAS COMPLETED AND THAT 
SAID RELOCATION AND ANY NEGOTIATIONS REGARDING THAT RELOCATION 
UERE FLYING TIGER'S RESPONSIBILITY. IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING 
THAT FLYING TIGER HAS NOT MADE ANY SIGNIFICANT EFFORT IN 
ATTEMPTING TO NEGOTIATE AN AGREEMENT UITH PAN AM. 

2. RELOCATION PAYMENT 



$50,000 IS NOT ENOUGH TO CONSTRUCT A SALES OFFICE IN SOME 
LOCATIONS AND NORTHUEST FEELS THAT THIS OFFER IS INADEQUATE. 
NORTHUEST BELIEVES THAT THE AMOUNT SHOULD BE AT LEAST 
♦150,000 AND IT SHOULD BE ESCROUED UITH THE UNDERSTANDING 
THAT IF ADDITIONAL EXPENSE IS INCURRED ON BEHALF OF THE 
AIRPORT OR ANY OTHER TENANT TO RELOCATE PAN AM THAT FLYING 
TIGER UOULD ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR SAID COST BECAUSE 
OF THEIR FAILURE TO ACTIVELY PURSUE THE RELOCATION OF PAN AM. 

UNFORTUNATELY, I UAS UNABLE TO TRAVEL TO SAN FRANCISCO TO APPEAR 
AT THE COMMISSION MEETING DUE TO FOG IN MINNEAPOLIS. IT UOULD 
BE NORTHWEST'S REQUEST THAT THIS LETTER BE READ INTO THE RECORD 
AT THE AIRPORTS COMMISSION MEETING ON NOVEMBER 19 AND THAT THE 
ORIGINAL MAY 7 PROPOSAL AS PRESENTED BY YOU TO THE AIRPORTS 
COMMISSION BE ENFORCED AS TO FINAL APPROVAL FOR THE LEASING AND 
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLOT 50A SITE. 

IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT NORTHUEST UAS MORE THAN UILLING TO DEVELOP 
THE SITE UNDER THE SAME CONDITIONS THAT FLYING TIGER UAS ORIGINALLY 
OFFERED TO DEVELOP THE SITE. OBVIOUSLY, THOSE CONDITIONS HAVE 
MODIFIED TO FLYING TIGER'S BENEFIT AND IF THE ORIGINAL CON-DITIONS 
ARE NOT MAINTAINED, UE FEEL THAT THE UHOLE ISSUE SHOULD BE OFFERED 
AGAIN TO ANY AIRLINE THAT HAS ANY INTEREST AND NEED IN THIS SITE. 

NORTHUEST MAY STILL BE UILLING TO DEVELOP THE SITE IF FLYING TIGER 
CANNOT MEET THE ORIGINAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE MAY 7, 1985 
LETTER. IF IT IS NECESSARY TO HAVE NORTHUEST APPEAR AT THE NEXT 
COMMISSION MEETING, UE UILL BE MORE THAN UILLING TO ATTEND GIVEN 
THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS ISSUE AND NORTHUEST HAVING ADEQUATE CARGO 
FACILITIES AT SAN FRANCISCO. 

PHILLIP A. STROHM 

REGIONAL DIRECTOR, PROFERT I ES/NU A 

NNNNEND 

NUAIR STP A 
SFO AIRPORT 
HHHH 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

MAR 2 8 1986 

3AN FRANCISCO 



MINUTES 



DECEMBER 3, 1985 



DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

J. EDWARD FLEISHELL 

Vice-President 

DR. Z.L GOOSBY 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 

LOUIS A.TURPEN 

Director of Airports 

San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

December 3, 1985 

Calendar Agenda Resolution 

Section Item Title Number Page 

A CALL TO ORDER: 3 

B. ROLL CALL: 3 

C. ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 3 



D. ITEMS INITIATED BY 

COMMISSIONERS: 

Non-Permitted Vehicles 

Operating at SFO 3-4 

United Airlines International 

Departures 20-28 



E. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 

OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

1. Fol low-Up on Flying Tigers 
Lease 

2. $396,000 Supplemental Appro- 
priation to Increase the 
Fiscal Year 1985/86 Annual 

Service Payment 85-0355 

3. $314,847 Supplemental Appro- 
priation Related to the 

South Terminal 85-0356 

4. Intercompany Assignment of 
North Terminal Game Room 

Lease 85-0357 

5. Award of Professional Ser- 
vices Contracts to Provide 
Geological Analysis, Hydro- 
logical Engineering and 
Chemical Grouting Services 
to Stop Leaks in Existing 
Tunnel 'C Between Parking 
Garage and South Terminal — 

$56,000 85-0358 



CONSENT CALENDER OF ROUTINE 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

Resolution Modifying Lease 

and Use Agreement - Delta 

Air Lines, Inc. 85-0359 

Statistical Adjustments for 
1985-86 Joint Use Billings 
Under Lease and Use Agree- 
ment 85-0360 



PUBLIC HEARING: 

Amendment to the Airports 

Commission's Rules and 

Regulations Regarding 

Circulating Traffic 5-20 



CORRESPONDENCE: 20 

CLOSED SESSION: 20 

ADJOURNMENT: 28 



Minutes, December 3, 1985, Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission 

December 3, 1985 



CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order at 
9:00 AM in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



B. ROLL CALL: 

Present: 



Morris Bernstein, President 

William K. Coblentz, Vice President 

Z.L. Goosby 

J. Edward Fleishell 

Athena Tsougaraki s 



C. ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 



In accordance with Section 54957.1 of 
the Brown Act, Jean Caramatti , 
Commission Secretary, announced the 
unanimous adoption of resolution 
number 85-0353 authorizing the 
Director to execute a Professional 
Services Agreement with Grieg W. 
Harvey, and resolution number 85-0354 
regarding the settlement of a liti- 
gated claim at the closed session of 
November 19, 1985. 



D. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

Commissioner Fleishell felt that steps should be taken to control the loss 
of revenue the Airport is experiencing by allowing newly formed companies 
to operate scheduled pick-up and delivery services at the Airport. He 
said that these other companies are operating scheduled services from 
which the Airport receives no benefit and to the denegration of the value 
of the exclusive contract that exists and the non-exclusive contract which 
we hope will go out to bid. 



Minutes, December 3, 1985, Page 3 



Commissioner Fleishell asked that staff establish a schedule of fees, 
within the limits of the law, to be levied against anyone picking up 
or delivering passengers to the Airport. 

Commissioner Fleishell said he would like a report at the next meeting. 
He felt that the fact that other airports may or may not do this should be 
of no interest; we have to decide what will be done at this Airport. 

Mr. Turpen said that a report will be prepared for the December 17 meeting. 



E. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 
Item # 1 was removed from the calendar. 

1. Follow-up on Flying Tigers Lease 

The following items were uanimously adopted. 

2. $396,000 Supplemental Appropriation to Increase the Fiscal Year 
1 985/86 Annual Service Payment 

No. 85-0355 Authorization to request a $396,000 

supplemental appropriation from the 
Mayor to increase the annual service 
payment due to a revised projection of 
Fiscal Year 1985/86 concession 
revenues. 



3. $314,847 Supplemental Appropriation Related to the South Terminal 

No. 85-0356 Authorization to request a $314,847 

supplemental appropriation from the 
Mayor to add staff due to higher 
passenger volumes and the opening of 
Boarding Area 'A' and the West 
Entrance Building. 

Mr. Turpen told the Commission that this was the result of the 
planned addition of Boarding Area 'A' in the South Terminal recon- 
struction program. The supplemental will increase maintenance and 
will include custodial personnel. 

Commissioner Fleishell asked how this would be affected by the 
Mayor's policy of not hiring new employees. 

Mr. Turpen responded that although the Mayor has put a freeze on 
hiring new employees she has been open to exceptions. 



4. Intercompany Assignment of North Terminal Game Room Lease 

No. 85-0358 Resolution consenting to the inter- 

company assignment of lease of Enter- 
tainment Center/Video Game Room in the 
North Terminal building. 



Minutes, December 3, 1985, Page 4 



5. Award of Professional Services Contracts to Provide Geological 

Analysis, Hydrological Engineering and Chemical Grouting Services to 
Stop Leaks in Existing Tunnel 'C Between Parking Garage and South 
Terminal — $56,000 

No. 85-0358 

Mr. Turpen explained that in 1987 the tunnel to the area just vacated 
by PSA will become Boarding Area 'C. He explained that that area 
has been experiencing problems with water infiltration. Staff would 
like to resolve those problems so that it does not interfere with the 
opening of Boarding Area 'C. 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 
The following items were unanimously adopted. 

6. Resolution Modifying Lease and Use Agreement 

No. 85-0359 Resolution modifying Lease and Use 

Agreement No. 82-0115 between the 
Airport and Delta Air Lines, Inc. 

7. Statistical Adjustments for 1985-86 Joint Use Billings Under Lease 
and Use Agreement 

No. 85-0360 Resolution adjusting 1985-86 Joint Use 

Billings pursuant to Section 101. W of 
the Airline-Airport Lease and Use 
Agreement for People Express Airlines, 
Inc. 



PUBLIC HEARING: 

The Public Hearing was opened at 9:10 AM and closed at 10:03 AM, there 
being no further public testimony. The following is a verbatim transcript. 

8. Amendment to the Airports Commission's Rules and Regulations 
Regarding Circulating Traffic 

Hearing on the proposed amendment to 
the Airports Commission's Rules and 
Regulations relating to commercial 
passenger vehicles circling on the 
upper level roadway between the 
Airport's North and South Terminals. 

Commissioner Bernstein: Ms. Joan Hartman of Park 'N Fly. 

Ms. Hartman: We have tried to comply with the new regulation of 
making the long circle. There are some times when it is really 
necessary, if a customer has left his plane ticket on the van, that 
they have to make a short circle to go in to get back. 



Minutes, December 3, 1985, Page 5 



We have a dispatcher on our lot who dispatches all of our long 
circles. We have been fined because of making more than 20 trips in 
an hour. But I just wanted to let you know that we are trying to 
comply with the rules. But if you are going to stop us from doing 
the inside we will have to go all the way around. 



Commissioner Tsougarakis: What is a short run and what is a long run? 



Mr. Turpen: There i s , on the upper level roadway, you have an 
election when you get to the North Terminal of either exiting the 
Airport or going around the garage. The short circle is really going 
around the garage; you actually come around the fourth level of the 
garage then enter on the upper level terminal roadway again. We are 
talking about circulating traffic in that area. I'm not sure. ..the 
long circle would either be through the yoyo... you actually go down 
the ramp by the service station or turn by the Bufano and come back 
up. That' s the long circle. 



Commissioner Tsougarakis: What is the proposed amendment? 



Mr. Turpen: The proposed amendment is: "No commercial passenger 
vehicle shall travel on the upper level terminal roadway connecting 
the North and South Terminals except the Airport's inter-Terminal 
Shuttle Bus", and we are proposing a $25.00 fine. 



Commissioner Goosby: You are talking about the short circle? 

Mr. Turpen: The short circle. The reason is that we have a number 
of operators who do nothing, including the rental car people, who do 
nothing more than circle the upper level roadway. As an example, if 
they come by and there is no one to pick up they will continue to 
circle that roadway and they will make multiple trips. 

Sheldon, how many? 



Commissioner Goosby: You're saying that they can't do the short 
cirlce, they will have to go all the way around. 



Mr. Turpen: I think Sheldon can give you some facts and figures 
right now which will tell you why we bring this to you. Let me say, 
harkening back to something Commissioner Fleishell said earlier in 
the meeting, this is really the first step of a series of things that 
we are now looking at with respect to the subject that Commissioner 
Fleishell brought up. 

Sheldon, can you show the Commission, briefly, some of our concerns? 



Mr. Sheldon Fein, Landside Operations: Recently, in August, we took 
some traffic counts on the upper level road and at the present time 
we are averaging 20,000 vehicles a day on the upper level road. 



Mr. Turpen: That is on the departures level in front of the terminal 



Minutes, December 3, 1985, Page 6 



Mr. Fein: On October 11 between the hours of 6:00 AM and 10:00 PM 
(16 hours) we observed traffic on the upper level center island. 
There were 1300 rental car shuttle trips during that period of time; 
700 trips were by off-Airport parking lot shuttle buses; 400 trips by 
carriers not permitted by the Airports Commission. Many of these 
trips were trips just circling around the roadway waiting to pick up 
passengers or rescheduling themselves. As an example, Bay Area Super 
Shuttle had 240 trips that day during that 16 hour period; 110 were 
trips of buses coming to the Airport; another 130 trips were those 
vehicles recirculating more than one time each on the upper level 
roadway. Lorries on the same day had 112 trips; 40 of these trips 
were nothing but recirculating trips. The rental cars had approxi- 
mately 75 trips recirculating, and, of the 700 trips by the 
off-Airport parking lots, 300 were recirculating, which means that 
almost every bus went around twice. If we restrict these buses from 
recirculating on the upper level roadway we believe that the 
recirculating traffic will be reduced by about 50 percent because the 
length of the trip will be at least twice as long. This will stretch 
out the flow of traffic and will free up the curb space so these 
buses will be able to get into the curb. Right now they double park 
because it's such a short trip to make the loop around. So, what we 
are basically asking for is that none of these commercial passenger 
vehicles be allowed to recirculate the upper level roadway and if 
they are going to come back and make the second trip, make the trip 
more circuitous. 



Commissioner Goosby: In other words, what you are saying is that 
they cannot make that circle under this proposal unless they go down 
to the ground level and go around by the Bufano and back up or past 
the service station. You think that stretching that out will reduce 



congestion? 



Mr. Turpen: That is Sheldon's professional opinion. What really 
brought this to light was we had so much double... as you know the 
upper level roadway is split into two roads, the interior and the 
exterior. . .there was so much double parking and bus congestion on the 
upper level roadway and called our attention to it. As the 
Commission will recall the Commission approved a plan for dividing up 
the roadways in 1980 which proved extremely effective. What we are 
seeing now is congestion build up and we are taking a look at why we 
are getting this congestion. That outside roadway is critical to us 
in terms of a bypass roadway from the South Terminal, the Internat- 
ional Terminal and even portions of the North Terminal to get traffic 
off the Airport. If that becomes congested with vehicles, buses we 
start to have real problems in terms of egressing the Airport. I 
personally experienced and witnessed it on a number of occasions. 
That is why we, as a first step, we have taken a look at what's 
causing it, and that is the number Sheldon has been relating to you. 
We think we need some mechanism to start to slow down this recircu- 
lating by these courtesy vehicles. 



Mr. Fein: This is really the second stage. The first stage, I think 
the woman from Park 'N Fly referred to, is the number of trips each 
bus is allowed to make to the Airport. . .we' ve limited that to 20. 
But what happens is we have a great deal of recirculating on top of 
that. This will control a lot of the bus services that average once 
every minute or once every two minutes, which just isn't realistic. 
Even though they are only picking up one passenger they still run the 
service. 



Minutes, December 3, 1985, Page 7 



Mr. Turpen: Sheldon, I think to clarify for the Commission, the 
rent-a-cars are on a schedule, is that correct. 



Mr. Fein: That's correct. 

Mr. Turpen: And the off-Airport parking? 

Mr. Fein: All the permitted vehicles on the upper level roadway. 

Mr. Turpen: Are on a schedule. Not on a schedule, but on a list. 

Mr. Fein: Correct. 

Commissioner Goosby: But the rest aren't? 



Mr. Turpen: Four-hundred trips by non-authorized. .. (interrupted by 
Mr. Fein) 



Mr. Fein: It's under the limit basically, on the permit and the 
rules on the off -Airport. . .1 don't know since we don't have an 
agreement with them I don't know how we can control it. 



Commissioner Goosby: How are you going to police it? Are you going 
to close off the access to the upper level through the garage? 



Mr. Fein: That is a matter of placing a sign indicating what the 
resolution is and if any vehicle passes that point a police officer 
can cite him in the same way as if he did not stop at a stop sign or 
some other infraction. 



Mr. Turpen: To make it fairly simple it is almost like a check- 
point. You could even put an officer up there to control it. 



Mr. Fein: At the present time that area is signed which prohibits 
taxicabs that are empty from recirculating on the upper level 
roadway; that is enforced in the same way... by police officers citing 
any taxicab that goes past that point. 



Commissioner Bernstein: I see you propose to have a fine for the 
violation. Before you can punish anyone you have to prove it. How 
will you prove it. 



Mr. Fein: It is a matter of a police officer citing the vehicle for 
a moving violation. 



Commissioner Bernstein: I know that citing is a very simple thing; 
they are specialists in that but how do you prove that they did it? 
Suppose that I didn't do it? 



Minutes, December 3, 1985, Page 8 



Mr. Fein: The police officer has to be out there and if a person 
passes that point going on the upper level roadway. . .this basically 
is the same matter that we enforce against the taxis. Any taxi 
driver with an empty vehicle that drives past that point gets cited 
at this point in time. That sign will be modified now to include... 
(interrupted by Mr. Turpen.) 



Mr. Turpen: I think what the Commissioner is asking, Sheldon, is 
what will happen if you go past that sign and I'm a police officer 
and I cite you... then you can go to court and you can protest that 
citation. If you prevail, you prevail and, if you don't you pay the 
fine just like any other ticket. 



Commissioner Bernstein: I know, but when an officer stops you and he 
says you were going 35 mph and he clocks you, and assuming it's 
correct. 



Mr. Turpen: If you are on a piece of roadway and you are a certain 
type of vehicle you are wrong. It's like going the wrong way on a 
one-way street... you can go to court and say "I did not know it was a 
one-way street...! wasn't on the street." 



Commissioner Bernstein: If you are on a one-way street you know you 
have violated the law. 



Mr. Turpen: There is sign there which says you cannot go by. 
Commissioner Bernstein: How can you prove that it is the ninth trip? 



Mr. Turpen: Not the ninth trip, the first trip. Any recirculating 
trip. The first time you go around, not the ninth time. 

Now, in response to your other question, if we're checking the number 
of total trips in a day we'd have to have people out there that would 
have to survey all the trips for that day in front of the terminal 
facility. We'd have to have people out there doing actual physical 
surveys. . .every trip for 16 hours. 



Mr. Bernstein: Mr. Timothy Hanskin of Good Neighbor's Air Bus. 

Mr. Hanskin: I defer to my partner. 

Mr. Andy DePaule of Good Neighbor Air Bus: We're here on the same 
matter, obviously. We're one of the ones being spoken of. We 
weren't mentioned probably because we are the smallest. Out of the 
20,000 trips I doubt if we comprise 30 in a good day. We would be 
severely effected by this and I think all the other companies would 
be severely effected. The way they described it it's as if we're to 
go and haul people off the curb which is not what any of us is 
licensed to do; we're licensed to go for customers who have called 
us. We have on-call schedules. We... I'm not quite sure about other 
companies. Besides being one of the owners of the company I drive 
quite a few hours a day so I understand. I just don't sit in an 
office and hear from the dispatcher and driver what is going on out 



Minutes, December 3, 1985, Page 9 



there - I'm there. The way that it is set up now, we have to stop at 
what is known as the "Brown Zone," a red and white curb with a brown 
sign, to pick up passengers. According to the regulations the 
passenger is supposed to go upstairs when we're picking them up. We 
are supposed to direct them upstairs, the dispatcher, where they go 
and wait. Now if it's raining, they wait in the rain, theoretically, 
for us to arrive. If we do this entirely by regulation we don't stop 
until they're actually there; then we pick them up and load them into 
the vehicle and we drive off. The problem is you have many old 
people and many people, this is the first time they're in the 
Airport. No matter how the dispatcher describes to those people how 
to get to that area they can't find it. The brown sign that says 
"Courtesy and Transit Vehicles" .. .the lettering is about 1-1/2 inches 
tall; it can't be seen by old people with glasses or any other 
difficulties. They also have difficulty in getting their luggage to 
and from that island. Once they do get out there they have to depend 
on us coming by. By lengthening the time it takes us to go around 
the same circle, because we still do have to go around to pick them 
up, it's that much longer that they have to wait and that much more 
that we have to travel . 

Commissioner Goosby: How much longer do you estimate? 



Mr. DePaule: It depends on the traffic, and that's another point. 
To do this circle in the way they describe, instead of safely doing 
it in a small circle where there's very little traffic recirculating, 
we would have to drive down a ramp, cross over either five (5) or six 
(6) lanes of traffic, depending on which lane you come down the 
ramp. . .that' s five (5) or six (6) lanes of very heavy traffic with 
sometimes taxis speeding out, other people speeding out, natural 
problems like giant puddles ... it' s a dangerous area; there's a lot of 
accidents I've noticed. You'd have to go down and in l/10th of a 
mile cross five (5) or six (6) lanes of traffic, make a loop. . .that' s 
if you're successful in getting to the loop... then cross another five 
(5) or six (6) lanes of traffic to get back in another 1/lOth of a 
mile and again with traffic rushing into the Airport, which will be 
worse when that new steep off-ramp is completed. We'd have to cross 
all that traffic again while other traffic is trying to cross the 
other way; this is already a terrible situation to get back up to the 
terminal. In the meantime, from our point of view, there are other 
services that provide a lot more vehicles. . .SupperShuttle obviously 
is one and Lorries is another. For them, if they have six (6) or 
eight (8) vehicles circulating, that means even if it is a 10-minute 
circle they're going to have a vehicle appearing every minute or two 
and our passengers are going to be out there seeing these people go 
by. When they go by they do stop... all of them. All of the 
companies take each others passengers, regardless of what they say 
when they adjust their halos...we all do that. And what happens is 
the passengers are solicited a number of times in a number of ways 
which is almost impossible to prove one way or the other. 



Commissioner Bernstein: You're doing well. If I were you I'd quit 
right now. Is there any way to change that or is it necessary to 
change it? 



Commissioner Coblentz: What about the lettering? 



Minutes, December 3, 1985, Page 10 



Mr. Fein: As far as the circling in the new route that is proposed, 
if the vehicle comes down off the upper level road, makes a right 
turn by the Standard station, uses the underpass and then comes up on 
the right hand lane at the Hilton side of the Airport, he does not 
have to merge across any lanes of traffic. 



Mr. Turpen: You turn at the service station. You're coming down 
toward the freeway, turn right at the gas station, left underneath 
the entrance road and then back. - so it's an exaggerated "U". 



Mr. Fein: So you have absolutely no lanes to merge across as far as 
safety. The other problem is, again, that these are operators that 
are not permitted by the Airport operating to San Francisco and they 
are supposed to have pre-arranged loads. We are not directing the 
public to them. We direct the public to the Airporter bus stop if 
they're going to the downtown area. These operators run around the 
upper level road, do not know if someone is delayed 15 or 20 minutes 
in the baggage area and therefore, for a period of time, just keep 
circling the upper level road. They have no way of determining, once 
the bus is dispatched, if somebody is waiting in that lower level 
area. Again, these are operators not permitted by the Airport. 



Commisioner Tsougarakis: What's the traffic, besides from this 
traffic, what's the traffic load on the upper level? Is it light? 
It probably is very light. 

Mr. Turpen: 20,000 vehicles a day. 



Commissioner Tsougarakis: Compared to what? What does that mean? 
Circling on the roadway? 



Mr. Fein: There are approximately 800 to 1,000 buses circling the 

upper level roadway. 



Commissioner Tsougarakis: Generally that's the most traffic that's 
there? I was just wondering if there wasn't some way, rather than 
doing all of that, that there may be a signal or stopping them, 
pushing the buses through on a regulated basis. 



Mr. Turpen: I think one of two things, Commissioner, happens and 
we've seen it. We're responding to the first thing that happens. The 
first thing that happens is that people pull into the zone and they 
wait. If we don't have enforcement up there to move them along they 
violate the rule which says no waiting, stopping during active 
loading/unloading only, so they wait. Then they double park, then 
they triple park then they wipe out the by-pass roadway. So in 
response to that we put officers upstairs to ensure that people will 
not dwell in these zones and keep them open. 



Commissioner Tsougarakis: That's the problem you're trying to 
address. 



Mr. Turpen: Now what's happened is that by addressing this problem 
we've created another one. 



Minutes, December 3, 1985, Page 11 



Commissioner Tsougarakis: Right. What I'm saying is that is it 
possible, rather than creating some traffic problems in the long run, 
we can set up some kind of regulated traffic control system. 



Mr. Turpen: We have a real problem in terms of the physical size of 
the Airport, in terms of the length of the roadway system and 
available curb and frontage at the Airport. That is a fact. And 
although we would like to de-regulate it and allow everybody to park 
for as long as they'd like, the fact is we can't do it; we have an 
obligation to the public to keep traffic moving and moving smoothly 
and that's what we've tried to do. 

We have a couple of mutually exclusive alternatives: one, the 
Airport wants to keep traffic moving and minimize the number of 
people accessing and demanding the curbside. On the other hand, we 
have a number of companies that quite frankly would like to have 30 
or 40 slots each to park at the Airport. 



Commissioner Goosby: There is a third factor. . .that we have a respon- 
sibility to the people who bid on that transport out there that we 
are going to protect their right to pick up. They are paying the 
City money every day for the protection of their right to pick up 
passengers and carry them to the City and I think that we are already 
being sued on the fact that we are not protecting their right to do 
this efficient safeguard. I think we have to keep that in mind, too, 
as we consider this. 



Mr. Turpen: That really is the issue and although I understand and 
am sympathetic to the concerns that the speakers have voiced, on the 
other hand we have a broader obligation to the travelling public as a 
whole to ensure that the Airport operates smoothly. One of the 
things contributing to the congestion is the recirculation and the 
fact that folks come out because the airplane is due at 9:00 and 
maybe the airplane doesn't come in until 9:20 or 9:30 or maybe there 
is a delay in the baggage claim area. It's pretty difficult to 
forecast it, I understand. 



Mr. DePaule: Could I summarize very quickly what I was saying? I 
think the solution to the problem is not recirculating traffic over a 
larger area creating larger problems but rather all of the general 
services, no matter who spoke out here, we need a bus stop where we 
can stand by and wait; where passengers can see the sign of the bus 
stop and easily find it. The situation now is impossible; it wasn't 
created by us; it was, unfortunately, created by the Commission. 

Mr. Turpen: Let me correct that. It was not created by the 
Commission. The Airports Commission responed to the PUC's 
de-regulation philosophy in which they handed permits to everybody 
and anybody who wanted one. Now if the Commission is responding to 
an inordinate demand on finite facilities; those are the. facts. What 
we're trying to do is take 10 pounds and manipulate it around in a 5 
pound bag so that everybody can operate. By your own statement you'd 
like to have a parking place for your bus so that you could wait as 
long as you want. I'm sure I could find a 1,000 people who'd like 
the very same thing; unfortunately, we can't do that. 



Commissioner Bernstein: Jacqueline Kahn, Parking Company of America. 



Minutes, December 3, 1985, Page 12 



Commissioner Coblentz: Let me say, only from my experience, two 
weeks ago I was at the Airport and I couldn't even let my wife off. 
There were so many vechicles that I had to circle around and go 
across traffic and finally I could achieve what I wanted, all at the 
same time during that period getting a great deal of abuse from my 
wife. 



Jacqueline Kahn: Yes, I'm very concerned about this new regulation 
coming into effect because one thing is we do have a business there 
and we try to give good service to our customers and we try to keep 
one van at the Airport at a time. We have people are calling in 
saying they're at the Airport. Now what happens, a lot of times the 
driver gets up there and those people are not out; they've called in 
and they're not there so they'll circle around waiting for that 
person to come out. If they have to leave the Airport, circle 
around, that's going to be more time by the time those people get out 
there; they have to wait longer when they get out there and they say, 
"I saw a bus leave and I'm out here". The fact is that we're already 
regulated; we can only have 20 vans up there an hour; 20 pick-ups an 
hour, that's every five minutes and that's what we're trying to 
comply with. I got a notice back from the Airports Commission that I 
had violated one hour... I had 21 runs in one hour. A lot of the runs 
only had eight rounds; some nine, and some ten. But one I had 21. I 
think these airport parking facilities are very essential to the 
Airport. .. (unintel 1 igible) .. .1 think it is very important that you 
look at our business standpoint that if we don't give good service, 
we lose our business. More and more people will be coming up there 
in cars to the Airport. They'll have more traffic than they ever 
thought about having if they didn't have commercial vehicles to pick 
them up. 



Mr. Dean Woods of Lorries: I came to a Commission meeting earlier, 
in August. One of the things that seems to be lacking in these 
hearings is any furthered interest in the convenience and safety of 
the publ ic. 



Commissioner Bernstein: Wait a second. 

Dean Woods: I'll qualify that if you'd let me. 



Commissioner Bernstein: You'd better qualify it. We spent too many 
hours on that. Don't give me that. I'm willing to listen to what's 
wrong, see how we can help, but don't tell me we don't care about the 
public. I've lived too long and worked too hard at this thing and 
I'm not going to have you stand up here and say that. 

Dean Woods: Well, if I've offended you. ..what I have in mind, sir, 
is that the current idea of directing traffic in a extended loop 
doesn't really do anything because the areas that we're going to be 
working in are single lane areas... from the gas station, that is a 
single lane and that is a bottleneck, down to and under the overpass, 
back around we will fall into direct conflict with the rental car 
buses, many of which are currently running one right behind the 
other, going into the Airport. All of the interest so far has been 
directed mostly at people like Lorries over the independent operators 
that are picking up and delivering persons to the Airport. It just 
seems that there is a greater problem than just the on-call operators 
that are at the Airport and yet most of the interest and most of the 



Minutes, December 3, 1985, Page 13 



efforts that have been suggested so far are directed at those people 
and not to the other conflicting problems that exist at the Airport. 
But delivering people, the elderly, the infirm to the Airport at an 
economic rate, seems like it should be of some concern to the 
Commission to do that as efficiently and with as much convenience as 
possible. 



Commissioner Bernstein: Mr. Alex Palermo. 



Mr. Alex Palermo: I'm the owner of a Travel Lodge Motel right on 
Poke and Ellis Street and my complaint is that my customers, of which 
I have an extensive promotion program at the Airport. I have many 
phones. I have an 80 room motel... Some get a lot of phone calls 
. . . (unintel 1 igible) . . .cash in on that promotion expense. The bottom 
line is this. ..I get a customer, he calls in on a direct line from 
the Airport... we have John Jones who's at Pan Am. We come in, a new 
company picks him up, they come at my place and they tell them $7.00 
apiece. I have a contract with a shuttle service that picks up these 
people and I pay by the month; I get an invoice and they get a check. 
Now the first thing that they find... oh, San Francisco, number one, 
I've been hit... free shuttle pick-up and now I have to pay $14.00 for 
me and my wife. It makes not only me, the owner of a Travel Lodge, 
look bad but it makes San Francisco look bad in the fact that they 
feel that they've been hit already. I don't know what the solution 
is but all I know is that my customers are being solicited by other 
people. We tell them it's a van and it'll say "Lorries" on it. I 
have many documentations on customers that say "Oh, you're going to 
downtown Travel Lodge." "Sure, we go there; come right in; we'll 
take you up." "Is this the right bus?" "Sure." 



Commissioner Goosby: And they charge them but you don't charge 
them... is that the point you're making? 



Alex Palermo: That's the point. Correct, sir. It's all in the 
package, of course. I take that into consideration. But it just 
makes me look bad and it makes the chain look bad. The very first 
thing that hit me and the reason that I came here is the fact that 
this one customer said "San Francisco. . .1 've been hit already." 



Commissioner Bernstein: You're in business and undoubtedly you try 
to take care of your customers the best way... so do we and so does 
almost every business I know of. I know very few, except out and out 
thieves that play around. There are certain expenses we have and 
certain fees we have to get, just like you; and there are certain 
things we can do according to law and there are many things we can't 
do according to law. I'd be glad to talk to a group of hotel owners, 
if you'd want to help and go to Sacramento and see if you can change 
some of these stupid laws that are in exi stence. . .and I know they're 
stupid but there's nothing much we can do. We sit up here and try to 
do the very best we can and we're certainly conscious of. the 
business interest of San Francisco. I, too, am involved in business 
in San Francisco, so I know what it is. I, too, occasionally take a 
taxi and bus and pay for it, so I know what it is. I know the 
hustling and everything else that goes with it. I've been around a 
long time. Thank you. 



Alex Palermo: You're welcome. 



Minutes, December 3, 1985, Page 14 



Commissioner Bernstein: Susan Song. 



Susan Song: My name is Susan Song. I'm working at the Chancelor 
Hotel Gift Shop owner. I've been working with Lorries for 6-7 years. 
They do a good job and if something happens, they always bounce it on 
my desk. So it's been a pleasure working with them. Also I know 
managers, bellmen, all employees, they like working with Lorries. 

But I have a complaint. . .since the Supper Shuttle has been working 
many of our guests make reservations, our secretary confirmation 
paper with Lorries advertising. . .the small green things with numbers, 
fares, how to catch a Lorries bus... so all worked out pretty 
good... they are so happy. But my guests wait for Lorries at the 
Airport and the Super Shuttle shows up and they ask if they want to 
go to the City. Passengers say they are waiting for Lorries; they 
say take it; we will take you for the same price. The people, they 
don't know... first time in the City. They're waiting for Lorries 
and they took the people and bring to my hotel door. I ask the 
guest how did you get to this bus? We were waiting for Lorries you 
said would come out. I called them and Lorries said they are at that 
location every 30 minutes so we're waiting out there. So Supper 
Shuttle stops and asks if we want to go to the City so we take it. 
At that time the driver gives to them the adverti sement. . .telephone 
number... you can call directly. I cannot get any commission. I 
have to pay the rent. It hurts me and I want to let you know. 

Sometimes, the Super Shuttle bus stops suddenly like a taxicab. Our 
guests are waiting with their luggage for a taxicab or a private cab 
and Supper Shuttle stops and asks them if they want to go to the 
Airport. Some of these people are already reserved for Lorries. I 
tell guests not to take it. Those people are waiting for Lorries; a 
few times I tried to stop them. I think it's unfair. I am unhappy 
with them. If you can help me, I would really appreciate it. 



Jerry Kapter, Lorries: Some of the points I will make are 
reiterations. I would like to mention of course, we're all under the 
assumption that passenger convenience is utmost and I think what's 
happening, to a large degree, was mentioned before about a lack of 
information, perhaps around the baggage terminal, that perhaps many 
times people don't know where to go. They are either misinformed or 
they're confused because all airports around the country are 
different. Perhaps if there were some better designations where 
these people are to go to pick up the charter or shuttle services, 
that might help things. 

Also, I'm wondering if perhaps to limit congestion that maybe perhaps 
the size of some of the buses, like some of the rental car buses, 
seem to be sometimes two of each kind up there. Some of the smaller 
outfits have smaller mini-buses and perhaps limiting sizes might help 
the congestion there. 

It was mentioned before by one gentleman about limiting the trips 
that we're able to make on top. I'm just wondering, that's a problem 
there because if we're forced to leave after a certain amount of 
trips, if our passengers miss us, they're stranded there and we have 
no recourse of how to get back up there and get them. Perphaps a 
holding area like downstairs is the answer, like this lady mentioned; 
if we're called from a holding area and pick up someone requesting a 
Supper Shuttle or Lorries. 



Minutes, December 3, 1985, Page 15 



I realize there is no solicitation at the Airport for services but 
what I'm finding out, I have witnessed in the recent past with the 
new Supper Shuttle service. . .there was a gentleman who works for 
Supper Shuttle. . .(reversed tape)... I saw a white cap out there and 
stopped him and pointed out to him that this guy is soliciting 
services for Super Shuttle and the white cap shrugged his shoulders 
saying there was nothing he could do. Well, my statement is that if 
they are allowed to solicit I think all the services should be 
allowed to solicit or nobody. 



Commissioner Bernstein: Thank you, very much for your constructive 
criticism. Thank you. Tony Ruiz. 



Tony Ruiz: Commissioner Bernstein, Commissioners. My name is Tony 
Ruiz and I'm president of Lorries Travel and Tours. 



Commissioner Tsougarakis: Excuse me, Mr. President, a point of 
clarification. .. is this the last speaker from Lorries. 



Commissioner Bernstein: No, there's one more. 

Mr. Turpen: From Lorries? 

Commissioner Bernstein: No, not from Lorries. 

Mr. Ruiz: Two drivers came up on their own and two people from the 
hotels, I asked them to come up to explain what was happening. I 
think that this is being addressed wrong. . .whether or not we should 
be able to go upstairs or go around. The whole point here, as Mr. 
Turpen has said, there is solicitation going on and this hadn't 
happened prior to Super Shuttle coming on the scene. At least, as 
far as I am concerned, I told Mr. Turpen many times that if any of my 
people solicit, please arrest them. I understand that one person did 
get arrested, which was then dismissed in court. 

I think that the 40 times that my buses had to go around is basically 
because they had to compete with Super Shuttle who has 10 or 12 buses 
just sitting up there at the Airport going around picking up people. 
They have signs on their vehicles to say "Downtown San Francisco;" 
when they see that there's no one going downtown, they change it to 
"San Francisco Wharf"; when they see that nobody's there, they change 
it to "Richmond." And so you're going to have, sooner or later, 
pirates I guess is the word that would be used. They're going to put 
signs in their vehicles, go up there and just be hailed down and pick 
up people. I don't think you're going to decrease the problem I 
think you're going to increase. The only way to handle the problem 
would be to arrest the people that solicit and I think that my 
attorney, who I wish had been here to express all this, talked to Mr. 
Garibaldi. I think Mr. Garibaldi was going to check into whether or 
not hailing is similar to soliciting. 

It's been my understanding that all times, and I try to follow this 
very closely, that you have to have a pre-arranged order to pick up 
down at the Airport. People that are going there now don't have 
pre-arranged orders; they're just passing by and they have 10 or 12 
vans sitting up there waiting. They have one person there directing 
traffic; everyone that comes in with luggage, they have someone down 



Minutes, December 3, 1985, Page 16 



there telling people we'll get you a vehicle. I personally witnessed 
a white cap police officer telling some people that all these 
vehicles were the same — that this particular vehicle went to the 
Fairmont also. I asked the people if they were waiting for Lorryies; 
the people said yes. The driver in that particular van called 
somebody over .. .another van from Super Shuttle. . .the Super Shuttle 
van came over, the people said this guy called a van for me, I'm 
going to get on their vehicle. You would not have the traffic 
upstairs if all these people weren't being solicited. 

Lorries has a schedule. . .Mr. Fleishell mentioned that; I missed part 
of that conversation. We have a schedule issued by the Public 
Utilities that says we are to pick up down their every 10-minutes 
until 2:00 P.M. and I think it's every 20-minutes after 2:00 P.M. We 
try to follow that schedule. We've developed the people coming in 
from the Airport promotions to the 10 years of sending out 
literature, working very hard to get people to go upstairs. In fact, 
I remember the time when I suggested to Mr. Turpen or his staff that 
we should be able to pick up upstairs rather than downstairs because 
it was too congested. I've dealt with it and I've tried very hard 
to comply with all the laws. We have 50 drivers and you're not going 
to be able to control all of those 50 drivers. The 40 times that we 
had to go around... it was to compete with Super Shuttle. In fact, we 
get balled out for not being up there often enough from our 
customers. 

So I think the problem that should be addressed here is solicitation; 
how do you stop people from stealing people? I have here a one page, 
from PUC (Public Utilities), certificate for Super Shuttle. Line 8 
it says WCC, really is Supper Shuttle now, and its agents are 
prohibited from knowingly and personally soliciting any persons who 
otherwise would have been passengers of another carrier embarking 
from the specific location. This order is effective 20 days from the 
date and is dated October 2, 1985, San Francisco and signed by the 
PUC Commission signed by the PUC Commissioner. 

They're doing the same identical thing here that they were doing in 
Los Angeles, so you're problem isn't whether traffic rolls around up 
there, the problem is that these people stay out there, they have no 
business in San Francisco, all the business is out at the Airport 
because they solicit. All the people that go upstairs are people who 
have been told that that is where they can catch the buses - that's 
the only people that go up there. Lorries continually tells people 
that if you go upstairs you can catch Lorries service; you don't have 
to call to get a scheduled service. So, I think what I'm basically 
saying is that everybody that goes upstairs has an intent to catch a 
particular carrier and I would like to say that we have at least 95% 
of that market right now and we are getting none of it because Super 
Shuttle. .. (interrupted by Commissioner Coblentz) 



Commissioner Coblentz: I think we have more than three (3) minutes 
So thank you 



Mr. Ruiz: Thank you very much. 

Commissioner Bernstein: Bill Lazar, Super Shuttle 



Minutes, December 3, 1985, Page 17 



Bill lazar: I don't think we're here to debate what Super Shuttle is 
doing at the Airport, I think we're trying to address the issues that 
the Airport is bringing forth. Super Shuttle, for one, concurs with 
the concept and we'd be willing to make an attempt to have this as an 
experimental project to see, if for maybe a 90 day period, to see if 
that does relieve the traffic congestion on the upper level. 

The two questions that I would address to the staff is for example, 
if a passenger loses or leaves a bag on board, that means that the 
vehicle has to leave the Airport property, go all the way down and 
around and that could cause a missed flight or something or even not 
being able to relocate that passenger. Secondly, once a person is on 
board the vehicle, for example, we have a call at PSA and that person 
is picked up and we have another person at United, and we have one 
person on board waiting for the person to come out of the United 
Terminal and we go by there the first time; it only takes probably a 
minute to make that loop. If we aren't able to stop, that means we 
have to carry a passenger off the Airport ramp, go back around and 
come back up and it's kind of an inconvenience to the passenger. 
With the vehicle being empty, we have no problem with that. We have 
gone to the extent of securing a holding lot for our vehicles off the 
Airport property so that we do not want to cause additional 
congestion. Our vehicles do go through the Airport every 5 or 6 
minutes; that's the way the system is designed. We provide service 
to four sectors in San Francisco so that therefore, there's more 
vechicles because we're taking less people at a time out of the 
Airport. So I would like to give it an opportunity to try and see if 
it works and if that relieves the problem that would be fine with us. 

Commissioner Flei shell: Mr. Lazar, have you found that any of your 
customers are solicited by other firms... no specific firm, but have 
you found the same problem that Mr. Ruiz has? 



Mr. Lazar: I'm sure it happens, Commissioner. Our system in Los 
Angeles delivers an awful lot of passengers to San Francisco. 



Commissioner Flei she 1 1 : I'm talking about the San Francisco 
Airport. I have no interest in Los Angeles. 



Mr. Lazar: I've seen it happen to other carriers who have people on 
the curb during the daytime. We try to have a person out there to 
make sure that our vehicles are doing as the Airport requests; that 
our vehicles are not stopping in the red and white zones for any 
period of time. The supervisor makes them move off the area in case 
they're not following the rules and when the Airport alerts us to the 
problems. . .we did have one driver that did solicit a person from the 
Ai rport . . .once I was aware of it he was terminated. We don't 
tolerate sol ici ting. 



Commissioner Bernstein: Thank you. We'll take this under advisement. 



Mr. Turpen: Yes sir, what we will do is staff will go back and take 
a look at some suggestions that were made today and we'll come back 
to the Commission at the next meeting. 



Minutes, December 3, 1985, Page 18 



Commissioner Goosby: One suggestion I want to put into the hopper on 
the basis of some of the comments made... one is possibly services 
provided by the mini-buses from the parking lots to the terminals 
might be separated out from those other operators who take people 
into the City. This would also be consistent with our concern about 
protecting the rights of our concessionaires with the Airport because 
those people going to their cars would not be potential customers 
anyhow. So people trying to get back to that parking lot across the 
freeway, or wherever, adjacent to the Airport, could be excluded and 
not handled the same way that we're handling Lorries and the rest of 
the carriers. 

The other thing is that the lettering on the signs. And then, Lou, 
we have to look at it again, whether the sol icitation. . .you know 
we've got a pretty good system for the taxi cabs. . .they have to show 
you a weigh bill to prove to you that. . .(interrupted) .. . I don't 
know that it's even realistic but as you look at it again if you can 
look at that possibility too and crack down on that sol icitation. . .1 
don't think you'll ever stop it though. 



Commissioner Tsougarakis: I'd like to also throw into the hopper the 
notion of traffic control on the other side of the short run... past 
the garage. 



Mr. Turpen: No coming back around. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis: Yes, that's what I'm talking about. 



Mr. Turpen: Well, I think the intent of this, Commissioner, is that 
if we pass this rule one officer can control that moving traffic on 
the upper road so we will be funnel ing everyone through a weigh 
station, if you will. The same thing we do with the taxicabs. . .we' ve 
got a toll booth on the way out of the Airport for taxicabs. What 
we're trying to do is come up with a system that we can enforce 
economically and effectively and I think this will do that. When 
you're trying to cover 2,000 or 3,000 linear feet of curb on two 
levels and four roadways it makes it a little more difficult. What 
this does is give us a single point that we can monitor everything 
that goes by. We will take a look at your suggestions. 

We should declare the public hearing closed, sir, and we'll come back 
to the Commission on the December 17th. 



Commissioner Fleishell: I'd like to make a comment, if I may. I 
think that most speakers seem to agree that there is solicitation 
down there that is improper. I think that's a major part of the 
traffic down there that we're concerned about that we can reduce is 
due, in part, to improper solicitation. I think it does go on; I 
know for a fact that it goes on. My wife was sol ici ted. . .just for a 
ride. Some years ago when I was running the City's clean r up program 
we had a similar problem. We would write a citation to the store and 
I suggest these companies take this as part of a going business. 
Well, we had a major company that would not obey the law so I talked 
to the President and explained to him that the next time we would not 
cite and that he should have an assistant manager with a separate set 
of keys because we were going to arrest the man and carry him out of 
the store... and guess what, they complied with the law. I think here 
we should look into some serious enforcement. We've got undercover 



Minutes, December 3, 1985, Page 19 



people; put them out, let them get solicited, and then arrest the man 
and have his bus towed away and guess what, I think you'll stop it. 
But I think we have to be aggressive to protect these people who are 
running legitimate businesses. And all of them agree that they are 
improperly sol ici ted. 



Mr. Turpen: That concludes the main portion of the calendar. The 
Commission will be going into Executive Session and I'd like everyone 
except for Airport senior staff to excuse themselves at this time. 
The meeting will reconvene after the closed session. 



I. CLOSED SESSION: 

The meeting recessed at 10:03 AM and reconvened at 10:25 AM. 



D. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

Commissioner Bernstein asked Mr. Steven Steers of United Airlines if 
he wished to address the Commission. 



Mr. Steers: I'd like to spend a few minutes with you today to talk 
about some of the issues regarding our introduction service to the 
Far East. A major investment for United, a big investment in San 
Francisco. When you consider all the options about where we operate 
and how we operate, and we considered them from the customers point 
of view, from the City's point of view, considering the planning 
that's been done surrounding the Central Terminal, and our own in 
terms of efficiency and cost, we keep coming back to the point where 
it is essential, we believe, that we operate our trips from the north 
statelite. To focus on the customer for just a moment, I'd like to 
explain the reasons behind our decision. 

San Francisco, for United, is a hub and a hub means connections from 
multiple flights connecting to San Francisco. That kind of flying 
and that operation will feed our employees and help us to be 
successful in marketing. But, for a hub to work well, for those of 
you that have tried to connect in O'Hare and other places, distances 
should be as short as possible to facilitate the movement of 
passengers from one aircraft to another. And taking three (3) or 
four (4) flights and putting them in a terminal that's far removed 
from 150 others and trying to make connections work is very 
difficult. Very difficult for the customer because it is confusing 
for the customer, and it's even more difficult when you consider 
baggage connections and operating ground equipment between two 
terminals. 



Commissioner Fleishell: We've looked at the physical distances 
you're talking about and you know we're not talking about a great 
deal of di stance. 



Mr. Steers: The physical distance is... there is a significant amount 
of physical distance. . .there are long distances in the terminal 



Minutes, December 3, 1985, Page 20 



already. . .the difference is that it's downstairs, through customs, 
through immigrations, back upstairs trying to find totally a separate 
terminal, walking down a hallway, or getting on a bus and trans- 
ferring to another terminal .. .even though the distance is short the 
process is confusing. 



Commissioner Tsougarakis: Are you talking about arriving or 
departing? 



Mr. Steers: We're talking about customers arriving on international 
flights at the Central Terminal, connecting to domestic departures to 
Des Moines , to Denver. 



Commissioner Coblentz: I didn't realize that was the issue. I 
thought the only issue before us is departures; but now you're 
bringing in arrivals. 



Mr. Steers: No, no I'm not. 

The difference is that if we operate departures from the Central 
Terminal all of the customers will have to travel to the Central 
Terminal for their departure instead of those few customers that are 
connections coming over... all of the customers will be going to the 
Central Terminal . 



Commissioner Tsougarakis: Are you aware that 78% of them are 
originating passengers. 



Mr. Steers: Yes. 

This summer we'll have 23,000 seats a day for sale in San Francisco; 
700 of those seats will be on international departures. Now if 
23,000 seats were operating from the North Terminal and only 700 are 
in a separate terminal, we believe for the originating customer who 
originates in San Francisco, that he'll find that very confusing; 
when they're used to coming to the north statelite and then having to 
find only three (3) flights in the Central Terminal. 



Mr. Turpen: What they're saying is that when people take United to 
Hong Kong, United's contention is that when people go there to the 
North Terminal, which United occupies, vis a vis going to the 
International Terminal, which at least today United does not occupy. 
Now our contention is you could do a United international versus 
United domestic if we wanted to sign it that way... and we think 
although there would be some initial confusion, our feeling is that 
there will be initial confusion no matter which way you go because 
where do you go to meet United's flight... the North Terminal or the 
International Terminal? You go to the International Terminal. 



Commissioner Fleishell: You also have the identical problem in many 
airports where airlines land at more than one airport in the same 
city... In Europe. . .Orly, Charles De Gaule...You have the same problem 
at many airports in the world. 

Mr. Steers: It could be the same problem in many airports - there 
are many airports in the U.S. and we're talking about San Francisco . 



Minutes, December 3, 1985, Page 21 



...but there are many airports in the U.S. who do have flights that 
arrive at an international terminal and clear customs there and then 
for the departures, depart from the carrier's normal terminal. So it 
really does operate both ways. But we think it would be confusing to 
United customers to have 150 departures in one location, one terminal 
and then operate three (3) in a totally separate operation, to say 
nothing of the difficulty of taking those connecting passengers who 
are arriving on multiple, multiple trips and trying to get them from 
20 or 30 airplanes to a totally separate terminal for their 
international departure. 



Commissioner Goosby: But you could have people who might be coming 
in on the South Terminal .. .now they can just go to one central 
location in the middle of the Airport; this way they'd have to bypass 
all that and come all the way up to the North Terminal from the South 



Mr. Turpen: There's a problem with that that I discussed with Mr. 
Ferris, and Steve was there. From the Airport's point of view that 
distance is about 2500 feet additional from the South Terminal 
essentially. Although we have an inter-terminal shuttle, the problem 
with the inter-terminal shuttle is that people in the South Terminal 
have to get their bags, carry them upstairs, go to the outer island, 
pick up the shuttle and ride a bus to the North Terminal. That is an 
inconvenience now depending on the numbers. If the numbers are 
significant, that can be an inconvenience for persons not flying 
United... and I understand why United wants to do what it wants to 
do. Would you rather carry your bags upstairs and ride a bus to the 
North Terminal .. .fly United. 

Mr. Turpen: I tell you truthfully, the travel agents would know. 
If you went to a travel agent to buy a ticket, they'd say if you fly 
on Lou Turpen Airline and wind up in the South Terminal, it's just a 
pain getting over to that fl ight. . .you're much better off flying on 
ABC Airlines because you only have to walk 12 feet for a connection. 

Mr. Steers: We believe that for the originating customer in San 
Francisco and the connections, if you study the passenger movement 
it's much more convenient to have all of your departures in one 
terminal rather than separated into two (2) separate terminals; 
distances are shorter, process is facilitated. 



Commissioner Tsougarakis: I guess, at least from your perspective, 
you're obviously going to try take away the interline connections 
with the advertising you do, and that's appropriate. I think that I 
would like to respectfully say your opinion on the originating 
passengers and mine aren't necessarily the same; I mean that can be 
handled either way. 




Minutes, December 3, 1985, Page 22 



Commissioner Bernstein: Mr. Steers, what are you suggesting? 



Mr. Steers: Well, what I'm proposing is that we understand the 
concern about certain concessions in the Central Terminal; we 
understand and we appreciate that concern; we'd like to work with the 
Director of Airports in resolving some of those issues. What we 
would propose... we would ask that you authorize Lou to negotiate with 
us some concessions for the concessionaires in the Central Terminal 
that are impacted by us by operating our flights in the North 
Terminal . 



Commissioner Bernstein: Well, before we get to the concessions, what 
about the claims - what do you propose there? 



Mr. Steers: We feel it's absolutely essential that we operate our 
departures from the North Terminal and our position is that we 
simply, in the interest. . .(interrupted by Commissioner Bernstein) 



Commissioner Bernstein: That would mean taking Pan Am out of the 
Central . 



Mr. Turpen: Moving those airplanes, sir. Right now the airplane 
leaves from the Central/International Terminal. United proposes, 
instead of leaving from the International Terminal, they'll fly in, 
then they'll move the airplane over to the North Terminal, and 
they'll leave from the North Terminal. 



Mr. Steers: And we'll depart our flight from the North Terminal. 



Mr. Turpen: So that everything will be the same on the arrivals then 
because of customs being in the International Terminal, obviously. 
The difference would be the departure end where United could go to 
Gates 80 and 82 for their international departures. 



Mr. Steers: We understand that there is concern on the part of the 
concessionaires in the Central Terminal about losses of revenues 
associated with taking departing flights and operating them from a 
different terminal where they have no concession currently. What we 
would like to ask the Commission is to authorize Mr. Turpen to 
negotiate with us a package of assistance to those concessionaires 
that are affected. We are prepared to do that. We've discussed with 
Lou the framework of an agreement and what we are asking is that you 
authorize him to negotiate with us for that package of concessions. 



Commissioner Bernstein: Just for my own personal information, I know 
how to spell the word but how would you define "assistance". 

Mr. Steers: Well, as we see it, there are two probelms. First there 
are concessionaires that don't have any operation at all in the North 
Terminal and they would be impacted by some loss of revenue. We'd 
like to talk about a form of income guarantees to those concession- 
aires who cannot move for a certain period of time, and we'd like 
also to discuss United providing the funds for the construction of a 
Duty Free Shop in the North Terminal; the terms of the agreement... 



Minutes, December 3, 1985, Page 23 



we'd like to have our money back through time. But those are the 
items that we think we can best negotiate with you in the interest of 
the concessionaires. 

Commissioner Fleishell: I'll repeat what I told Mr. Wayne when he 
told me this... Duty Free does not require you to put up the money to 
build; that is no concession at all as far as I am concerned. If I 
were going to do it, I wouldn't need you to put up the money for me. 
They have their banks. There's more to this loss of revenue than I 
think you all have addressed so far. When you take a large... use 
Duty Free, it's a classic example. . .When we created the master 
concessionaire concept, the best example of that in the United States 
according to FAA...we have an entire group of shops all together and 
there's no way you can assume that if you take 10% of the passengers 
and bring them over to the North Terminal that the North Terminal 
concession that you would relocate would then do 10% of the business. 
No way in God's world because you have a whole shopping feeling - all 
these shops as compared to having a little soap cart in the middle of 
your terminal. I have no confidence that your company, on the basis 
of what I've heard, is prepared to do anything near what these people 
are going to require, and we have a legal obligation to protect them 
and to make certain that you do not do exactly what you say you want 
to do. Until there is a resolution of that problem we have a 
problem. We bid on the basis of our existing policy that said all 
international flights will land and take off from the Central 
Terminal. That's why we built it; and we bid concessions on that 
basis. People have spent their money and come in here to do business 
with us and now we're going to permit your company to change the 
rules of the game for your convenience. No question, I'd do the same 
thing were I in your position but you must realize the problem we 
have legally. Plus down the line there's another aspect of this. If 
you're going to move all this business into your facility in the 
North Terminal, your agreement under your lease with us to 
accommodate other carriers is going to become increasingly difficult. 
We'd end up having to shove them in the Central Terminal and we'd end 
up with a totally bastardized system where we had gone into our 
planning for many, many years to create. 



Commissioner Goosby: There's a fourth point on to that. ..we'll have 
other airlines who might want to start flying to the Philippines, 
Japan, Taiwan and so forth who now have a domestic flight in the 
South Terminal or elsewhere. They could say, look, you let United do 
this, we want to start pulling our flights over to the South Terminal 
and in five to 10 years we've got nothing left out there but another 
hodgepodge of what we had before we planned it this way. 

I'm sure United is sensitive to what the City is trying to do. If 
you do it, legally, we can't say anybody else can't do it. I'm no 
lawyer but I defy a lawyer to tell me we can let one airline do it 
and tomorrow another one comes along and says that they want to do it 
and we can't allow them to do it. Plus, in the agreement we agreed 
and we wrote a letter and supported United' s getting Pan Am's... 
transferring their assets to United under the understanding. . .our 
understanding. . .that they were going to take over Pan Am's operation. 
I think the agreement says that they're going to assume Pan Am's 
obligations and operations and in my opinion that included operating 
out of the International Terminal. The Mayor wrote a letter 
endorsing the concept, encouraging this acquisition, and I'm sure 
she's as adamantly opposed to this as we are. You have a lot of 
things to explain and I don't know whether there are going to be 
other speakers but maybe you can get to those other items, too. 



Minutes, December 3, 1985, Page 24 



Mr. Steers: I'd like to address two points. The Commissioner's 
point that in the future there's no way that we can make up that loss 
of revenue. I believe that in the future we will expand the inter- 
national flying to a far greater degree than Pan AM was ever able to 
and that the revenues from concessions in the North Terminal through 
time will far surpass what has been the case in the Central Terminal 
because of our ability to feed those international flights with 150 
other trips. That is what will make us, we believe, successful in 
the market place and in the long term assures that those revenues to 
the City will occur over the long term because of our growth in the 
marketplace. We estimate we'll be easily double the size of the 
international operation in 10 years and that's not something that I 
believe under the earlier situation with Pan Am that they could do. 

With respect to the second issue. 



Commissioner Tsougarakis: You could also do that in the Central 
Terminal. And don't tell me you can't. ..it's just a matter of how 
you market it. I'm sure there's no question about it. My concern is 
why can't we try to go along with it? Why can't we leave it alone 
for a period of time to give us an opportunity to look at what the 
statistics are going to be like; give us an opportunity to see if 
there are some ways we can accommodate where we don't have to ruin 
our long range plan; we don't have to establish precedence that will 
later be much more difficult to deal with once we've made the changes 
that you suggest, and, at the same time we could look at it more 
carefully. Maybe we can make some concessions in placement of the 
reservation desk; the whole thing to accommodate what kind of 
marketing needs you have. But I don't think you've looked at that 
possibility at all... you have not looked at that alternative. We 
have looked at both and what we're saying is, at least a period of 
time, let's leave things the way they are. First of all we can't do 
anything as quickly as it's necessary to be done. So why not leave 
things as they are for a period of time to give everybody a chance to 
look at what can be done in that context as well as in what we're 
suggesting. 



Mr. Steers: You make very persuasive arguments. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis: Did I persuade you to change your mind? 



Commissioner Coblentz: I'd like to suggest that... I've read Paul's 
letter of Nov. 21 and 25th... I don't think necessarily we want to 
instruct staff to do anything right now but yet I really want to 
reserve the time for a little judgment and thought on this. Perhaps 
in our next meeting of December 17th we can come up with something. 
I don't want to foreclose this offer is what I'm saying here. Let's 
give us the time; sort of a gestation period for a while. 



Commissioner Goosby: While they consider what Athena suggested 
without foreclosing anything. 



Commissioner Tsougarakis: It's a two way street. It has to be a two 
way street. 



Commissioner Goosby: Then we're going to have a hearing. There'll be 
other people that will want to address this. 



Minutes, December 3, 1985, Page 25 



Mr. Turpen: Mr. Lyons from Duty Free is here today. On the 17th, 
yes. On the 17th when it's calendared. 



Commissioner Coblentz: I'd rather do that because I'm not sure we 
really know what we're going to do. 

Mr. Steers, I appreciate your coming here. Maybe Paul wants to say 
something or Alan. Just give us time. 



Mr. Turpen: Two things. Mr. Lyons is here and wishes to at least 
briefly address the Commission. Secondly, we will calendar this item 
for the December 17th meeting with the appropriate notifications... 
with the standard notifications. 

Mr. Joe Lyons of the Duty Free Shoppers. 



Mr. Lyons: Good Morning. Thank you for the opportunity to say 
something in this regard. We agree with many of the points that have 
been made here this morning by the Commission. Basically, as you 
know, in 1982 we bid for the Duty Free and the Principal Concession. 
Just in the way of background, I guess, I would like to point out in 
1982 we bid for, and successfully, for the Principal Concession after 
the Duty Free Concession. We did that pursuant to the Airport master 
plan and the development in the Central Terminal of very large 
facilities. We have a total, I think, of 14,000 square feet between 
both operations. We have three Duty Free shops, three gift and news 
shops; we guaranteed $22-million over the term; we're currently 
paying an average of $3-mi 1 1 ion a year. We do have in place and 
working quite well the minority concessionaires under the master plan 
so we certainly have a great concern on the effect of a change in the 
ground work or in the change of departures of international traffic, 
from the Central Terminal to the United Terminal. We have received a 
letter from Mr. Turpen who asked for our views. We have submitted 
those views to Mr. Turpen, pointing out certain financial effects 
that we can see which will occur. That letter is available and 
states our views. We certainly agree and we feel there are very long 
term effects if there is a change in the policy where international 
flights will then depart out of the other terminals. Certainly our 
guarantees and our arrangements were made under the assumption that 
the Central Terminal would be the focus point and there's no question 
that we feel that there would be financial repercussions both to 
ourselves and to sub-tenants and to other people in the Central 
Terminal. We're not the only concessionaires who depend on the 
international departures, specifically international departures to 
Japan, to meet the guarantees and to meet the commitments we've made. 



Mr. Turpen: Thank you. I understand it's the Commission's wish that 
I calendar this item for December 17th. 



Commissioner Coblentz: We're going to have this calendared on 
December 17th. Let's have it the first item on the calendar. 



Mr. Turpen: We'll schedule it for the very first item... a special 
item. 



Commissioner Bernstein: Mr. Paul Van Wert. Paul, anything to 
comment? Do you want to say anything to anybody. 



Minutes, December 3, 1985, Page 26 



Mr. Paul Van Wert: I just want to add three quick points to Steve's 
comments, if I could. Athena, regarding our look at operating out of 
the Central Terminal, I would like to refer you to the first letter 
we wrote back in October which demonstrated, I think, two things; 
one, that we looked very seriously at operating out of the Inter- 
national Terminal and I hope that letter expressed six or seven very 
serious reservations we had about doing that. So I do want you to 
know we have looked at that very seriously, not only in the beginning 
but since objections have been raised by the staff and the Commission 
we have continued to review that option in-house and, as Steve said 
earlier, we keep coming back to the same answer. 



Commissioner Tsougarakis: I just ask you to remember that over 75% 
of the passengers are originating and in my opinion you can look at 
it from that standpoint. I really question how much you're going to 
tilt that towards connecting passengers. .. (unintel 1 igable) .. .change 
the statistics significantly. .. (unintell igible) .. .for connecting 
passengers through United and if you don't do that then it can be 
handled and marketed so that you don't turn everything upsidedown for 
everybody else except United. I guess that's what I'm saying. I 
think the number of originating passengers is the key to this whole 
thing and I'm not even talking about concessionaires. I would 
agree, although I think Duty Free has a good point in terms of loss 
of revenue for a period of time, but I agree that yes you can 
go. .. (unintel 1 igible) ... I think still it's the long range 
implications to the S.F. Airport that is the major concern here. 



Mr. Van Wert: Well, with regard to the statistics on the originating 
and connecting passengers, we are currently connecting about 357. of 
our traffic in the North Terminal so we would expect that probably 
the percentage of connecting passengers operating on our interna- 
tional flights as opposed to another carrier would be greater so we 
anticipate more connecting passengers. The other thing we don't want 
to do is walk all of our originating passengers over to the Central 
Terminal. I know there's been some. .. interrupted by Commissioner 
Tsougarakis. . . 

Commissioner Tsougarakis: Over from where? 

Mr. Van Wert: From the North Terminal to the Central Terminal. 

Mr. Turpen: He's assuming they're ticketing in the North Terminal. 



Commissioner Tsougarakis: No, that's one of the problems we need to 
try and resolve, obviously; ticketing considerations, I agree. You 
don't go from San Francisco to the Airport, go to the North Terminal 
and get ticketed and then go over to the. . .(unintel 1 igible) .. .We have 
a job too, but that's what should first be looked at for negotiation; 
not how to set up a concession in the North Terminal. 



Commissioner Goosby: How can we make the International Terminal 
feasible for their use, for us, and so forth? What other things can 
we throw in there? Ticket them there, signing and so forth and 

then. . . 



Minutes, December 3, 1985, Page 27 



Commissioner Tsougarakis: And then if that doesn't work, I'll vote, 
OK. Let's try that first because once we do what needs to be done in 
the North Terminal we'll never go back to international if that 
appears feasible. Never. 



Commissioner Coblentz: I'm not sure I agree with you on that yet. 



Mr. Van Wert: If I could just say one more thing. United has found 
itself as an international carrier in San Francisco as a result of 
unforeseen circumstances. I think being the major operator, if we 
had been an international carrier when the Commission was considering 
construction of the Central Terminal, I think the Central Terminal 
still would have been built but would it have been built for the same 
reasons? I don't think you would have passed an absolute policy 
about international operations. I think you would have recognized 
that we had to conduct our international operations out of the North 
Terminal . 



Mr. Turpen: Or we would have put you at a different place at the 
Airport. 



Commissioner Tsougarakis: That's correct. 

Commissioner Bernstein: Is there anything further? 

Mr. Turpen: No sir. We will calendar this item as a special item on 
December 17th... it will be the very first item on the calendar at 
9:00 a.m. on Tuesday morning. 

I would suggest that the Commission President adjourn the meeting. 
Commissioner Bernstein: Meeting adjourned. 



H. CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission. 



J. ADJOURNMENT: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 11:00 AM. 



< I 

Jean Caramattl 
mmission Secretary 



Minutes, December 3, 1985, Page 28 



SAN FRANCISCO 
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 




MINUTES 



DECEMBER 17, 1986 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

FEB a 1986 

SAfJ FRANCISCO 

public library 



DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR 

COMMISSIONERS 

MORRIS BERNSTEIN 

President 

WILLIAM K. COBLENTZ 

Vice-President 

DR. Z.L. GOOSBY 

J. EDWARD FLEISHELL 

ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS 

LOUIS A.TURPEIM 

Director of Airports 

San Francisco International Airport 
San Francisco, California 94128 



Index 

of the Minutes 

Airports Commission 

December 17, 1985 



Calendar Agenda Resolution 

Section Item Title Number Page 

A. CALL TO ORDER: 3 

B. ROLL CALL: 3 

C. ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 3 

D. SPECIAL ITEM: 

1. United Airlines' Inter- 
national Departures 4 

E. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

2. Report on Position of FAA 
with Respect to Operations 

of Boeing 707Q Aircraft 4-5 

3. Report on Proposed Amend- 
ment to Airports Commission 

Noise Regulations 4-5 

4. Barber Shop/Beauty Salon 

Lease 6 

F. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 6 

G. POLICY: 

5. Bid Security Policy 85-0362 6-7 

H. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, 

OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 

6. Resolution Requesting Authori- 
zation to Bid Banking Services 

Lease 85-0363 7-8 

7. San Francisco International 

Airport Aviation Exhibition 85-0364 8 

8. Bid Call : Contract 1416AB 

Boarding Area 'C and Apron 85-0365 9 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE 
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

9. Sam Trans Bus Information 

Kiosk and Sign - 
North Terminal and South 
Terminal - Upper Level 
Sidewalk 85-0366 9 

10. Airport Contract No. 1631: 
Replacement of 10-Inch 
Effluent Line at Industrial 

Waste Treatment Plant 85-0367 10 

11. Statistical Adjustments for 
1985-86 - Joint Use Billings 
under Lease and Use Agree- 
ment 85-0368 10 



J. CORRESPONDENCE: 10 



L. ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED 

SESSION: 10 



Minutes, December 17, 1985, Page 2 



Minutes 

of the 

Airports Commission Meeting 

December 17, 1985 



CALL TO ORDER: 

The regular meeting of the Airports Commission was called to order 
at 9:00 AM in Room 282, City Hall, San Francisco, Ca. 



B. ROLL CALL: 
Present: 

Absent: 



Morris Bernstein, President 
Z.L. Goosby 
Athena Tsougarakis 

William K. Coblentz, Vice President 
J. Edward Fleishell 



C. ANNOUNCEMENT BY SECRETARY: 



In accordance with Section 54957.1 
of the Brown Act, Jean Caramattl , 
Commission Secretary, announced 
unanimous adoption of resolution no. 
85-0369 regarding the settlement of 
a litigated claim, and, 85-0370, 
Modification No. 8 to professional 
services agreement with Morrison and 
Foerster to include advice and 
handling of litigation In Airport 
noise control regulations at the 
closed session of December 3, 1985. 



Mr. Lou Turpen, Airport Director, presented an award to the Commission 
from the Building Industry Conference for the Terminal Modernization 
Program. He said that the award, given annually to an individual or an 
organization, recognizes activities that directly or indirectly benefit 
the Industry. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis expressed appreciation for the award on behalf 
of the Commi ssion. 



Minutes, December 17, 1985, Page 3 



D. SPECIAL ITEM: 

The following item was removed from the calendar. 

1. United Air Lines' International Departures 

Resolution affirming the Airports 
Commission's International Terminal 
Policy and application of that 
policy to United Air Lines inter- 
national service. 

After determining that there was no one present who wished to 
address the Commission on this issue the item was removed from the 
calendar. 



DIRECTOR'S REPORTS: 

Items 2 and 3 were discussed together. 

2. Report on Position of FAA with Respect to Operations at SFO of 
Boeing 707Q Aircraft - Verbal Report 

3. Report on Proposed Amendment to Airports Commission Noise Regulations 

Mr. Turpen said that as the Commission is aware, the Airport 
received an application from Burlington Northern Airfreight to 
operate the 707Q Aircraft at SFO. He explained that the "Q" 
designation stands for "Quiet" and identifies a retrofit to the 
engine on the 707 which allegedly brings it into compliance with 
Federal Noise Regulations. 

Mr. Turpen said that Burlington Northern filed an application for 
waiver of the Airport's Operations Bulletin, which he denied. He 
said he expected Burlington Northern to submit a request to the 
Commission President for a waiver under the Airports Commission's 
1978 Resolution. 

Mr. Turpen reminded the Commission that the FAA has threatened 
several sanctions against the Airport, including terminating our 
federal funding. He told the Commission that Is no longer a threat 
thanks to the efforts of Congressman Tom Lantos who met with Admiral 
Engen, head of the FAA. Mr. Turpen said that Admiral Engen assured 
Congressman Lantos that any removal of federal funds from the 
Airport would be postponed indefinitely. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked if it has been confirmed that the FAA 
will not take any action against the Airport. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the FAA asked for a response .by December 
11th as to why we were discriminating against Burlington Northern. 
He said that the Airport asked for an extension until January 8th. 
Mr. Turpen said that last Friday the FAA granted us an extension to 
January 10th to respond and he does not anticipate that the FAA will 
do anything until after they receive our response. That response is 
currently being re-drafted. 

Commissioner Goosby asked If the FAA might not still terminate our 
funds after the hearing in January. 



Minutes, December 17, 1985, Page 4 



Mr. Turpen responded that there was no guarantee that after January 
the FAA might not once again threaten to terminate our federal 
grants. He told the Commission that Admiral Engen has said that the 
funds are not in jeopardy at this time. Mr. Turpen added that the 
outcome is dependent upon what happens with our response to the FAA 
and future action. 

Mr. Turpen said that this ties in with Item No. 3. He said it was 
his intention to bring an amended noise regulation before the 
Airports Commission in January. He said that the Airport's current 
noise regulation, conceived 1n 1978, was dedicated to promoting a 
quieter fleet in San Francisco. Mr. Turpen felt that it was time to 
update that regulation in view of events, such as the recent settle- 
ment with the plaintiffs in the small claims cases. He said that 
the Airport is now in a position to take the next step in a pro- 
active noise abatement program. He said that he would send the 
Commission a copy of his proposed noise regulation and will schedule 
it for public hearing at the meeting on January 7, 1986. 

Mr. Turpen said he would draft the Airport's response to the Federal 
Aviation Administration and share that draft with the Commission in 
the next week or ten days. He said he would incorporate the 
Commission's comments and file it with the FAA by their deadline of 
January 10, 1986. He said that the next move will be up to the 
FAA. He expected that the Commission would receive a request for 
waiver from the aircraft's operator. The Commission's 1978 Rule 
contemplated the need to grant waivers and therefore establish the 
mechanism whereby persons could present their case. Mr. Turpen said 
that he could not nor would not want to foreclose their opportunity 
to address the Commission directly. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if the Commission would receive the 
results of the tests made of that engine. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis said that there was an indication that 
there would be a retest and asked if it had been scheduled. 

Mr. Turpen responded that he was not certain. He believed that 
Admiral Engen, in a conversation with Congressman Lantos, indicated 
that he would be open to a retest. He said he was not sure the 
conversation got beyond the conceptual stage. He felt that a retest 
would be entirely appropriate in view of the circumstances surround- 
ing our concern. 

Mr. Turpen told the Commission that the Airport's view is very 
simple... the Q707 generates more noise than the takeoff of anything 
operating at SFO. He said that what compounds his concern is that 
this aircraft literally achieved the highest possible noise level 1t 
could achieve and still qual ify. . .that is at 105.6. A tenth higher 
and this aircraft could not have qualified for operation. He added 
that our further concern is the fact that in our view, the airplane 
coasted over the noise monitor. He said that the noise readings 
measured during the test didn't reflect accurately what we can 
experience in a real operation out of San Francisco. 

Commissioner Goosby said that the Airport has had problems with the 
FAA before. He felt that since the FAA was satisfied with one test 
that was met by 1/10 of a point he felt that It might be a good Idea 
to ask our other Congressmen to aid Congressman Lantos in encourag- 
ing the FAA to do another test. 

Mr. Turpen said that at the suggestion of Commissioners Bernstein 
and Coblentz he sent letters, like the package he sent to the 
Commission, to the Governor, Congresswomen Burton and Boxer, Speaker 
Brown, and a number of other persons he felt would be interested. 



Minutes, December 17, 1985, Page 5 



4. Barber Shop/Beauty Salon Lease 

Report proposing the preliminary 
leasehold specifications of the 
Barber Shop/Beauty Salon Lease for 
review and comment. 

Mr. Turpen said that the current lease on our Barber Shop, which is 
located in the North Connector, terminates on March 8th, in about 
three months. Staff is suggesting that instead of pursuing the 
traditional barber shop concept we might want to take a look at 
pursuing a combination facility which would include a barber shop 
and a beauty salon. He said that staff would like an opportunity to 
include this in the annual passenger survey in March. If the 
response is favorable, staff will move ahead. 

Mr. Turpen told the Commission that this would involve a month-to- 
month extension to the current proprietor of the barber shop since 
his leasehold expires virtually during the time of the passenger 
survey. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if this was the only barber shop on the 
Airport. 

Mr. Turpen responded that it was. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if the suggestion to eliminate the shower 
came from the barber shop operator. 

Ms. Angela Gittens, Deputy Director of Business and Finance, 
responded that the suggestion was made by staff and was based on the 
amount of space the total barber shop occupies and the small amount 
of revenue received from the showers. 

Mr. Turpen said that if the Commission has no objection staff will 
proceed. 



F. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 

There were no items initiated by Commissioners 



G. POLICY: 

5. Bid Security Policy 

No. 85-0362 

Mr. Turpen said that this policy allows staff more latitude in 
accepting bid security from prospective tenants or concessionaires. 
He said that a lot of small businesses have expressed concern about 
their ability to meet the City's rigid reguirements. 

Ms. Gittens added that staff would indicate to the Commission on 
each bid what forms of bonds would be accepted. She said it would 
be done according to the policy and the Commission would have the 



Minutes, December 17, 1985, Page 6 



opportunity to change it. 

Commissioner Goosby asked for an explanation of the $100,000. 

Ms. Gittens responded that where there was a minimum bid amount of 
$100,000 staff typically would require a bid bond of $50,000, so any 
bid under that would qualify for this broadened policy. 

Commissioner Goosby remarked that it would then be only those bids 
that were under $100,000 that would offer staff this flexibility. 

Ms. Gittens responded that that was correct. She added that this 
policy does not cover construction contracts, indicating that they 
were governed by City ordinance. 

Commissioner Goosby asked Mr. Garibaldi what the advantage was of 
the third party legal liability over a certified check. 

Mr. Garibaldi responded that we run into problems with bankruptcy 
laws. If a bidder should go bankrupt a certified check would be 
considered an asset of the bankrupt, whereas a corporate surety 
bond, for example, is a third party and we can get our money inspite 
of a bankruptcy. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if the Airport pays interest on the 
bond. 

Ms. Gittens responded that the interest is returned to the tenant. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if the interest is paid as it accrues or 
at the end of the lease. 

Ms. Gittens responded that for a certified check, it is at the end 
of the lease; for a certificate of deposit, the tenant would earn 
the interest as it accrued. She added that in the case of bid 
bonds, once the award is made the bid bond is returned. 

Commissioner Bernstein asked if stocks could be put up. 

Ms. Gittens responded that stocks were not acceptable. 

Ms. Gittens clarified that the money is returned to all but the 
winning bidder. The bid bond is returned to the winning bidder when 
a performance bond is posted. 



H. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 

The Rule of Necessity was invoked on Item #6, allowing Commissioner 
Tsougarakis to vote. 

6. Resolution Requesting Authorization to Bid Banking Serv.ices Lease 

No. 85-0363 

Mr. Turpen explained that this item requested authorization to bid 
the bank at the Airport. He said that one of the prospective 
bidders was Bank of America and that offered a problem for 
Commissioner Tsougarakis. 



Minutes, December 17, 1985, Page 7 



Mr. Garibaldi said that normally Commissioner Tsougarakls would be 
disqualified at this point, however, if the Commission feels that it 
is necessary to authorize the bid at this time rather than delay it 
further, under the Rule of Necessity, Commissioner Tsougarakis can 
be allowed to vote on this matter, even though she has a potential 
confl ict of interest. 

The Commission agreed that the Rule of Necessity should be invoked. 

7. San Francisco International Airport Aviation Exhibition 

No. 85-0364 Resolution regarding the establish- 

ment of a permanent Aviation Exhibi- 
tion and the acquisition of a 1937 
Open Cockpit Arrow Sport antique 
aircraft. 

Mr. Turpen explained that staff will begin the process to establish 
an aviation exhibition in the North Terminal. He said that the 
process would continue when Delta Airlines relocates to the South 
Terminal. He told the Commission that Elsa Cameron has been 
successful in obtaining a commitment from the Smithsonian Institute 
for two of their aviation exhibits. He added that the Smithsonian, 
up to this point, has never loaned out exhibits. 

Commissioner Goosby asked if the Airport had to pay for the trans- 
portation of these exhibits. 

Mr. Turpen responded that the Airport typically pays for transpor- 
tation of exhibits. 

Mr. Turpen said that Ron Wilson has done a fine job in working with 
Harrah's to arrange the loan of this aircraft. He explained that 
Harrah's has guaranteed that we would have the aircraft for a 
minimum of two years and added that it looks as though Harrah's will 
be willing to extend that time. This aircraft will be the center- 
piece of the aviation exhibition. 

Mr. Turpen said the aircraft will be located in the lobby area at 
the beginning of the Delta/American concourse as you enter the North 
Terminal from the Connector. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis noticed that Harrah's wanted to display 
brochures on the exhibition and suggested that they be discretely 
placed. She was concerned that even though the collection was 
separate from the casino there was still that link. 

Commissioner Goosby hoped that the loan of the aircraft would be for 
more than two years. He asked if the Airport couldn't buy an old 
biplane. 

Mr. Turpen said that this aircraft is the real thing and is In 
perfect condition. 

Mr. Turpen, in responding to Commissioner Goosby' s continued concern 
that Harrah's would not agree to an extension after two years, again 
said that he felt there would be no problem. 

Mr. Turpen told the Commission that the Smithsonian people were so 
intrigued with the Airport's Exhibition Program that they missed 
their flight back to Washington and spent more time viewing the 
exhibits. He said that It was the quality of our program, which 
Elsa Cameron runs beautifully, that convinced the Smithsonian to 
allow us to exhibit their collections. 



Minutes, December 17, 1985, Page 8 



Bid Call : Contract 1416AB 
Boarding Area 'C and Apron 

No. 85-0365 Resolution approving: 

1) the combination of contracts 
1416, Boarding Area 'C and 1518, 
Boarding Area ' C Apron, into 
Contract 1416AB; 

2) the change in scope of work for 
Boarding Area 'C to accommodate the 
relocation of Air Cal and Northwest 
Airl ines; 

3) bid budget of $26,350.00 for the 
combined contract; 

4) scheduled completion date of 
December 31 , 1987; and, 

5) bid call for the combined 
Contract 1416AB. 

Mr. Turpen pointed out that there is a typo in the calendar under 
item #3... the bid budget should read $26,350,000. 

Mr. Turpen told the Commission that this item replaces the existing 
pier that PSA was using. PSA and Republic have relocated to 
Boarding Area 'A'. This pier, which is the last remaining pier 
built in 1954, will be removed and replaced with a new boarding area 
pier, identical to the one American and Delta now occupy. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis did not understand why this was going to be 
delayed for four or five months. 

Mr. Jason Yuen, Administrator, Bureau of Planning and Construction, 
responded that there is a schedule of completion for time and 
budget. The schedule and budget can be met, however, in talking 
this over with contractors who will bid this job, they believed that 
if they were allowed more time the cost of the project could be 
reduced by about $2-mi 1 1 ion . Staff felt it was worth it to save the 
money. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked if this was measured against the 
income that would be received if the area was completed sooner. 

Mr. Yuen responded that most of those concessions have been 
relocated. 

Commissioner Tsougarakis asked about the large restaurant that is to 
be opened up. 

Mr. Yuen responded that Commissioner Tsougarakis was referring to 
the Private Reserve which will be located in Boarding Area 'B'. He 
said that this boarding area would provide a snack bar and the 
Omelette Parlor. 



CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMDINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 

9. Sam Trans Bus Information Kiosk and Sign 
North Terminal and South Terminal 
Upper Level Sidewalk 

No. 85-0366 Resolution approving concept and 

graphics. - T-3068 - $20,000. 
No cost to the City. 

Minutes, December 17, 1985, Page 9 



10. Airport Contract No. 1631: 

Replacement of 10-Inch Effluent Line at Industrial Waste Treatment 
Plant 



No. 85-0367 



Resolution approving Modification 
No. 1, a Type II Modification, con- 
taining agreement for payment in the 
total amount of $1,842.34. 



11. Statistical Adjustments for 1985-86 - Joint Use Billings under Lease 
and Use Agreement 



No. 85-0368 



Resolution adjusting 1985-86 Joint 
Use Billings pursuant to Section 
101. W of the Airline - Airport Lease 
and Use Agreement for Swiss Air 
Transport Co. , Ltd. 



CORRESPONDENCE: 

There was no discussion by the Commission. 



ADJOURNMENT TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION: 

There being no further calendared business before the Commission the 
meeting adjourned at 9:35 AM to go into closed session. 





J/an Caramatti 
/ommission Secretary 



Minutes, December 17, 1985, Page 10